ει ͵ 2
SR YD
REMARKS ON THE ETYMOLOGY.
OF \ ree
TON ayn or ΘΕΟΣ,
THE RENDERING OF THOSE TERMS INTO CHINESE.
BY THE REY. 5, ὁ, MALAN, M.A.,
OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD; AND VICAR OF BROADWINDSOR, DORSET.
“ Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἐν ᾿Αθήναις λγνωστον ἐφευρόντες, καὶ προσκυνήσαντες,
χεῖρας. εἰς οὐρανὸν ἐκτείναντες, τούτῳ εὐχαριστήσομεν, ὡς καταξιωθέντες
τοιόυτου κράτους ὑπήκοοι. γενέσθαι. Τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς, ληρεῖν emp
᾿ἀρκεσθέντες ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν, τὸ, Od φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ, κατὰ τὴν
se mapowpiay.”—Luctan, Philopatr. ad fin.
π᾿ ᾿Π ΛΕ. ΤΌΧΡΟΝ.:
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS;
EHO FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER BOOKS, CHURCH SERVIOES, b>
LEXIOONS, - opeigeanad CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS, IN ANCIENT —
AND MODERN LANGUAGES;
16, PATERNOSTER ROW.
‘YSTEPON UPOTEPON.
Tue preachers of the Gospel in China are not yet
agreed among themselves as to who is Gop in that
country. Some say it is “ Sur,” others say it is
SHANG-TE”; while a few declare it is neither.
Our own knowledge of the subject is, we regret to
say, very limited. For we have never been in China;
and our acquaintance with Chinese literature is as
yet only slight. But, in common with many, we
earnestly wish to see the Gospel have free course in
China, instead of being hindered there by those who
preach it. If, therefore, they and their friends at
home, will not disdain a few hints from one who has
no prior claim to their notice, we will venture to
suggest a few points at issue between them, which,
when calmly considered, may possibly tend to level
difficulties in the way of a mutual understanding.
“ Favete, adeste eequo animo, et rem cognoscite
Ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit reliquum.”
But, although we had no alternative, in giving
PUG S2aL
iv ‘YSTEPON IIPOTEPON.
extracts from Chinese and from other Asiatic writings,
than to strip them of their native elegance, and to
lower them to the level of common type, we owe some
apology to men resident in China for doing so. For,
as there is inherent in every letter a feature that
belongs to the language, there can be no real equi-
valent for a characteristic alphabet. Assuredly not
for the grave outline of the sacred Devanagari; and
least of all for the ideographic symbols of the land
of Yaou and Shun. Fancy even Homer in Roman
type! Would he not be —
‘* pholkos” indeed, ‘‘cholos d’heteron poda: to de
hoi omo
kyrto, epi stethos synochokote
echthistos d’Achilei malist’ on, ede kai hemin?”
For quotations disguised in this vicious and am-
biguous form, which is little else than the lifeless
remains of their living original, offer but a repulsive
image of the language they represent. And their
only use is, we may say, to point to the gems of
archaic lore enshrined in the venerable texts to which
they refer.
Thus, while occupied in noticing faults in other
men, we are naturally brought to solicit their in-
ὝΣΤΕΡΟΝ IIPOTEPON. ν
dulgence, and to hope that (at least for the sake
of Hafiz), when in reading they discover our own
errors,*—
wi Geb y cy les S Cty
dei Lbs ἡ dle At ae ἀξ
“they will not blame but forgive; remembering that
no tiving man is free from mistake.” It is true,
*
““ quos aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura” —
Such} as: p.10,1.8,18, 5 for ὁ im Kel au!.—p. 20,1. 16, ὥρισε
Jor dpwe.—p. 22, 1. 20, men for them.—ibid. 1. 25, dele 76.—
p- ὅθ, 1. 4, χθόνος for xOovds.—p. 57, 1. 14, δι μαϑο ΐν]ο
Sor ᾿ξ ,αϑὸ Shii10.—p. 59, 1. 19, ἢ for Q, la, in FOND.
—p. 76, 1.9, le for le im Eddaleren.—p. 81, 1. 24, πιστόφυλαξ for
πιστοφύλαξ.---Ὁ. 84, 1. 18, πάντος for révtws.—p. 88, 1. 26, this for
that.—p. 91, 1. 9, ἹῬωμαίοι for “Pwpator.—p. 97, 1. 28, dele (Vit.)—
p- 110, 1. 16, It for Hymn.—p. 111, 1. 2, note, ed for et.—p. 119,
1, 14, dio for dio.—p. 114, 1. 9, in for im.—p. 117, 1. 12, de for
cbe.—p. 122, 1.19; 166,1.9; ἑνὰ for &a.—p. 124, 1. 1, add to.—
ibid, 1. 8, y, for αὐ ὧν Vy Sayre. 94,1. 8: 126, 1.4; 188,
1.11; 190, 1. 10, δαίμον for Saipov.—p. 126, 1. 18, παθόμενος for
meopevos.—p. 127, 1. 23, mixed for mix.—p. 128, 1. 9, ἧττόν for
ἧττον. --Ῥ. 139, 1. 7, 8, Ee for K’he.—p. 152, 1. 6, k’heang for
keuen.—p. 177,1. 11, Wai-jin for E-jin—p. 188, 1. 1, 2 for ¥ in
Wy.—ibid. 1. 6, DBWIDD for *PELIDN.—ibid. 1. 27, 993 for Π83.---
" p. 205, 1. 12, ἕτεροι for erepot.—p. 223, 1. 10, DMN for arose. —
p. 251, 1. 7, dele , after DTON.—p. 278, 1. 7, Διὰ for Aia.—and
others, we trust less important.
vi ‘YSTEPON IIPOTEPON.
that, had we given the opinions of others instead of
our own, we might have left our pages less imperfect.
But a mere compilation from other writings would
not have served the cause in hand so effectually as a
fresh supply of original matter. We have abstained,
therefore, from consulting others, in order to approach
the subject with a mind entirely free from bias on
either side; and so as to form our judgment on*the
merits of the case, from the Hebrew, the Greek, and
the Chinese texts alone. The following remarks,
then, however crude they may be, have at least one
merit,—that of not being borrowed, but authentic.
Under these circumstances, however, it is quite
possible we may have taken erroneous views on some
points. If so, we will hope, that since our only
motive is a search after Truth, our short-comings
may provoke some one else, who, within reach of a
good library, enjoys greater facilities for research
than we do, to go deep into this important question,
and to settle it once for all.
“Ἔν Θεῷ ye μὰν τέλος."
5.6 Ν.
BROADWINDSOR,
Feb, 1856.
ig | CONTENTS.
PAGES
I.—INTRODUCTION ; é 5 : ; t 1—10
Il.—Ossect oF THE WorkK OF TRANSLATION . 10—13
IlI.—On our INTERCOURSE WITH THE HEATHEN . 138—32
δὰ IV.—On THE TRANSLATION OF THE TERM “GOD” 3839.--. 59
V.—On tHE Erymoxocy oF 8, FON, AND DTN 52—69
ViI.—On tHE EryMotocy or ΘΕῸΣ. : . 7TO—129
VIl.—Own THE EryMoLoGy or T’HEEN . - 129—135
VIIIl.—On tHe ΕἸΤΥΜΟΙΟΘῪ or SHIN . ; + 135-=158
IX.—Propaste Reasons in Favour oF SHIN AS
EQUIVALENT FOR “ GoD,” REFUTED - 1638—164
X.—On THE ErymMotocy oF SHANG-TE . . 165—173
XI.—On THE CHOICE OF THAT TERM FOR “Gop” 173—182
ΧΙ. ῬΑΒΑΥΤΕΙ, BETWEEN 8, Aon, pToN, ΘΕΟΣ
anp Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ, anp SHANG-TE, WHIcH
PROVES SHIN TO BE AAIMON αν not
ΘΕΟΣ : : ; 2 ; i - 1838—199
XIUI.—On tue Erymotogy or AAIMON : . 200—215
XIV.—Comparison oF SHIN, AND ΟΕ SHANG-TE,
IN THE BIBLE WITH by : ; : . 218-227
ΧΥ.--Ὥτττο, . . . . WITH πος AND Dros : . 227—237
XVI.—Dirro, .... witn ΘΕῸΣ anp 6@EOS . 24257---247
Vill CONTENTS.
τ ῬΑΘῈΞ
XVII.—On THE UNFITNESS OF SHIN TO STAND
For GOD .. . : ; : 5 248—259
XVIII.—On THE DANGER OF ALLOWING PRIVATE
FEELING TO BIAS THE JUDGMENT IN
SUCH MATTERS ‘ : ; ; . 260—276
XIX.—On THE SHANGHAE VERSION : . 276-282
XX.—SumMMING UP oF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
SHANG-TE . : ‘ - ἢ . 283—291
XXI.—Ditto, .... 4N Favour oF SHIN. 291—304
XXII.—Conciusion ; : : ; : . 305—310
(St. Eppram Ser. adv. Scrvr. lix.)
21D εἰκών Ἰόξζο NS wialo yo |Auralo ahi
cin «οὐδ. Gai BS ps σιό--. σιό GNan Ἰών)ὸ
aj fol eats od
“The Word of our Gop is the source of peace,
and brings peace to all. But we make war with it;.
with it we think of strife;—with it we hate one
another; and again, with it we prepare destruction
for ourselves.”
ee
‘
Le ee ee eS ee! Ee δα ee Oe ONT
REMAR-KS,
ETC,
i.
AxsouT a year ago we bought for a very small sum,
at the Depository of the British and Foreign Bible
Society, a beautifully-printed copy of the first part of
the New Testament in Chinese, with this title-page in
English and Chinese :
“The New Testament in Chinese, translated by the Committee of
Delegates, appointed by the Protestant Missionaries in China for
that purpose: printed at the expense of the British and Foreign
Bible Society; the Text, exclusive of the words for representing
Theos and Pneuma, being supervised by the Committee of Delegates ;
the blanks left by them for these words being filled in by the
Shanghae Corresponding Committee of the British and Foreign
Bible Society. London Missionary Society’s Press. Shanghae,
1851.”
“She shoo-che ch’hing ‘Shang-Te’ che ch’hwang-tsao
T’heen-Tih-Choo tsae-ming-wuh, eul yen. Ke ming ‘ Yay-
howah’ ts’*hung-kaou, wo shang so tang pae-k’hwei; wei
5Ζ6 yew jin i chi-tsung-che ming ch’hing fan so tse-sze tsae-
fung-chay ; koo she shoo-che fan yung sze ch’hing tsae. I
Z 2 ;
2
p’heih ke wang shih-keae-che yih yue: Go Yay-ho-wah
eul-che Shang-Te; yu eul wai puh-ko pee yew Shang-Te.
*‘She Shoo-che yung ‘ Shin’ tsze che wo-hing-tseih-chay ;
ΘᾺ] yen.’’*
The words “ Theos” and “ Pneuma,” ‘ God” and
ἐς Spirit,” printed on the face of the book, and at once
suggestive of goodness and peace, induced us to hope
that, ere this, their influence had allayed the waves of
controversy, which had “raged horribly,” for years,
between the champions of “Shin,” and the worship-
pers of ‘“‘Shang-Te.” We hailed, therefore, our pur-
chase as a messenger of peace; and we carried it
home as a pledge of better days. But the dove, alas!
has returned without an olive leaf. And the flag of
truce, waved in token of good-will, has just been fired
upon, though happily not hit, by a small battery on
land, in the shape of an anonymous pamphlet;f a
signal to the knights of “Shin” once more to enter
* “Tn this book the term ‘Shang-Te’ refers to the Lord-Governor of
men and things, who at first created the heavens and the earth; and that
is all. His highly-honourable name, Ye-ho-wah, is exalted above taking
honour from bowing and kneeling which, are practised among men, in
token of the greatest respect, and as expressions of the highest degree of —
devotion to Him. For this reason is this term (Shang-Te) in general use
in this book. And, to guard against an erroneous impression of its mean-
ing, the first of the Ten Commandments says: ‘I am Ye-ho-wah thy
God (Shang-Te), besides me thou mayest have none other God (Shang-
Το). In this book, the term ‘Shin’ refers to that which has neither
form nor substance; and that is all.”
Tt “* Shin v. Shang-Te’: antagonistic versions of the Chinese Scrip-
tures. A review of the controversy respecting the proper rendering of
Exoum and ΘΕῸΣ into Chinese, and statement of the evidence showing
a large majority for ‘Shin,’ etc. By a life-member of the Bible Society,
of thirty years’ standing.— Ex. xxiii, 13; Isaiah xlii, 8; Luke xi. 11.
London: Wertheim and Macintosh.”
3
the ring, and to run the gauntlet in full tilt. For as
yet there is no peace among the belligerents. The
two rival armies are still in battle-array against each
other, and still eager to shout in the fray: “Io
triumphe!” “We will fight in defence of ‘Shin’ or
‘Shang-Te’ !”
Sad, indeed, it is that it should be so. For, in
truth, one might expect that every man engaged in
the solemn undertaking to translate the Word of God,
and to give it to the heathen in its purest form, would
let that all-important object outweigh all other con-
siderations; and that he would at once lay the free-
will offering of his learning at the foot of his Saviour’s
cross. We must, however, conclude from the pam-
phlet before us, that, apart from convictions, the re-
sult of conscientious research alone, private judgment,
if not, party feeling, have at times taken the place of
calm discussion; and they seem, at last, to have
brought men, at home, conscientiously to hate one
another for the love of God; and, in China, to fight
angrily by way of eee peace. And in such a
cause, too! when—
VysS δά dod Gyo 0
“Two hearts in one might rend a mountain” ;
they still prefer—
Bp oS Onl LA
“To be two captains, and to sink their ship !”—
As it was in Ceylon some years ago, when the
4
key-note of discord among the Christians in the
island was: “Are you for ‘Deviyan’ (Eloah), or
for ‘ Deviyanwahansé’ (Elohim) ?” so also at pre-
sent in China, not only do the preachers of -the
“Gospel of Peace” strive among themselves, but, may
be, one of their flock, a good “ Christian” boatman,
who plies across the Yang-tsze-keang, or in the
harbour of Canton, may think fit, after taking his
fare, first to inquire if you be for “Shin” or for
“ Shang-Te,” ere he consents to spare your life, and
to land you safe on shore.
Such a state of things is partly excusable, perhaps,
at the outset of a mission, when everything is strange,
and the language is as yet little understood. But
when kept up, as it seems to be in this case, it injures
materially the cause of Christ’s Gospel abroad; and
at home it does, assuredly, no good.
Here is, for instance, a “‘life-member of the Parent
Society of thirty years’ standing,” who appears in the
ranks with the very best intentions, as a peace-maker,
armed with a ploughshare and a pruning-hook, in
token of his errand. But while he preaches peace,
he does not seem aware that he wounds his neigh-
bours right and left, by brandishing around him
his peaceful weapons. For, in his zeal, and while
sparing no pains to impress upon the Committee of the
Bible Society his own very decided preference for
* Shin,” he blames, in round terms, that benevolent
and influential Body for giving a premature verdict -
against the term of his choice, in order to escape the
5
other unpleasant alternative of acknowledging them-
selves unable to decide the point. And, at page 9,
he tells them that “it would have been their wisest
course to have cancelled their Resolution, especially
after such ample evidence was adduced for ‘Shin,’
and to have decided at once for this term.” ‘“ For,”
says he, “the advocates of ‘Shin’ had certainly a
right to look for this”; but that, on the contrary,
“they and their friends were astonished to see the
Bible Society still halting between two opinions”
(poor limping Body !), “in the face of so much evi-
dence,” etc.
Why the Bible Society should ‘decide at once,” to
please the advocates of “ Shin,” in particular, may not
appear quite so clear to others as it does to the “ life-
member.” But he must have probed the subject
thoroughly. For, with more assurance, perhaps, than
charity (page 9), he “thinks the case is now plain
enough for any serious-minded, sensible Christian,
who is willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit
of God, to form a sound judgment in this important
matter”;—-a consoling thought, assuredly, for any
one who may venture to differ. So that now, who-
soever advocates “Shang-Te” instead of “ Shin,”
whether in Pe-tche-li or on the banks of the 'Thames,
may know, that he can lay no claim to being thought
either “‘ serious-minded” in his research, ‘“ sensible”
in his opinion, or “ willing to be guided by the Word
and Spirit of God” in his decision ;—if, indeed, he is
not altogether wanting in conscientious feeling. For,
6
at page 10, we further read, that “the advocates of
‘Shin’ have never wavered or doubted the fitness of
that term to render Etonm and ΘΕῸΣ, since they en-
tered thoroughly into the question, and rightly under-
stood it. Therefore, to surrender it for any other
name or title, would be to violate their conscience,
and disregard the Word of God altogether.” How
then is it, that if “they have thoroughly entered into
the question, and rightly understood it,” they have
left “out of the question” Ex, Exoaun, and Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ,
three out of the five names for “ God” in Scripture ?
for they only mention Exonm, and ΘΕΟΣ. 7
‘““Tantane vos generis tenuit fiducia vestri!”
But since the “lifeemember” is at head-quarters,
and corresponds with friends in China, he must have
had ample opportunity to follow this debate through
its successive stages ; and he speaks, no doubt, from
book. We regret we are not so fortunate; for we
have no friend engaged in the cause; and our only
source of information, and, therefore, our only
authority on this subject, is the pamphlet before
us. We can therefore only venture to submit to its
author, that it is just possible others than the advo-
cates for “Shin” “may have entered thoroughly into
the question,” may have understood it, at least, as
“rightly,” and may be as anxious to “ do no violence
either to their conscience or to the word of God,” as
the stanchest “ Shin”-friend the writer of that pam-
phlet may have. For the nuendo at pages 10 and 15, .
7
that scholarship ill accords with conscience, or with
an honest desire for the glory of God, deserves no
notice, except to show that it retorts upon its author.
If it be granted, what, then, may we ask, becomes of
those who are so deeply conscientious? Are they no
scholars? Neither does it follow as a matter of course
that, because a man has resided ten years or more in
China, he is, therefore, competent to judge. He may
have been there longer, and still think Confucius too
old, or Mencius too prosy —besides they were heathen !
—and thus know little of either, and still less of their
classical tongue. We have often seen that the case
in India, as regards Indian studies. Still less is the
question decided by the circumstance alone of “a
large majority being in favour of ‘Shin.’” For it is
an established fact, in Europe, and, we presume, also
in China, that the best scholars, and therefore the
men best able to be judges in such a case, are by
no means plentiful. Unless it be there, as it is in
Turkey, where—
BO SE οἱ oF
“Α man who knows much, makes many mistakes.”
With us, at least, such men are to be looked for
in the minority ; and it would appear that it is the
ease also in China: for there, among the “ adversa-
ries” of “ Shin,” we notice several men of note ;—
one especially, Dr. Medhurst, who is well known as a
first-rate Chinese scholar. His opinion, whatever it
be, is therefore entitled to great deference on any-
8
thing relating to Chinese literature. For, what is
required to meet the question is not breadth, so
much as depth. And in the words of the Hindoo
poet:
““ Ekashchandro tamo hanti na cha taraganairapi.”
“One moon does more to dispel the gloom than a
thousand stars.”
Assertions, or even private opinions, “ ad captan-
dum” only, will fail to convince men who look below
the surface. But they may, as in this case, perhaps,
mislead others, who, having no better opportunity to
judge for themselves, will, at once and cordially, de-
cide on doing “the right thing”; and, as a pious act,
freely—
ἐς Dant veniam corvis ; vexat censura columbas.”
It seems, therefore, to be the duty of every one
who may hope to assist, even a little, in this cause,
to do so simply and candidly, with a view to God’s
glory alone. That is our apology for offering our
opinion at all. But we do so with diffidence ; for we
run the risk of an encounter with “ giants of Gath,”
in the shape of Committees of men, our seniors in
years as well as in learning and experience. They,
too, leave us a very forlorn hope of escape, since we
are told, at page 10, line 18, that no compromise will
do. Either we must side with “ Shin,” and live, or die
with “Shang-Te”! And yet, to quote the writer’s
words, we have “no choice left in the matter,” but,
9
with other friends of China, to accept the challenge
at page 9, sec. 10, and “see that the truth of God is
maintained, and his great and glorious name ho-
noured, and not dishonoured in China.”
‘‘ Arma parate, animis et spe preesumite bellum !”
We will, therefore, crave the patient hearing of
our readers, while we touch on the “ extrema rerum”
of the case, and lay before them the reasons which
have led us, living away from the din of battle of
“Shin,” to hear of it without alarm, and to judge of
the fight for ourselves. However poor the fare, they
will have, at all events, something more than a some-
what partial view of “ Shin v. Shang-Te” to go upon.
Unless, indeed, some of them have already made up
their mind, like that bencher in Erin, who, would |
not hear the other side of the question, as it “ puzzled
him so!”
Meanwhile, we would venture to submit to the
Committee of the Bible Society, that they need not
take alarm. Neither should they be moved to recall, in
haste, their former verdict ; and thus hasten their final
decision, by the dread of either “ giving the Chinese a
stone instead of bread,’ or of incurring a fearful
responsibility to God, and the millions of Chinese,
who are waiting for “the bread of life” (page 15).
The case, we may assure them, is not so desperate.
The bread is not “poisonous”; and all the harm
““ Shang-Te” can do to his own people, is not to be
compared with the injury done them by, first, sanc-
10
tioning one reading for the most important word
in the whole Bible; and then, after that, expelling
it, covered with anathemas. On the contrary, we
should say, the Committee of the Bible Society may
take credit to themselves for their slow delibera- -
tion. For, in this case, if ever, the Arabic adage is
true—
ENS) Ὁ Onl! (ὁ
Kael ΑΜ dy
‘In haste lies repentance; and in moderation,
safety.” And—
τ . ried | τὸν ΩΝ
delat} clits λα},
“Patience is the key to joy; but haste, on the
other hand, opens the door to regret.”
1
What then, we ask, is our object at present? [18
not, let us hope, to bend the version of Holy Serip-
ture in Chinese, to present circumstances only, by —
adapting it to the taste, notions, or prejudices of the
insurgents. It is, rather, to give the people of China
a translation of the ‘pure milk of the Word,” in
a style alike acceptable to the educated, and easily
understood of the common people: so that they may
live and “ grow thereby,” as long as the Hoang-ho
ἊΝ
4
2
.
δ
4
i
M
11
rolls his wave across the plains of the Middle-king-
dom, and there is one man left who speaks ἘΠ the
_ peculiar idiom of that land.
Our task, then, is to render faithfully into good
Chinese the true meaning of the original Hebrew and
Greek texts of Holy Scripture. And that requires, on
our part,—
A) A knowledge of the sense of the original text.
B) A knowledge of the language into which the
original text is to be translated. Now—
A) The sense of Holy Scripture may be twofold :—
a) Literal, and—
b) Allegorical.
The allegorical sense, however, is so uncertain, and
depends so much on the turn of a man’s mind, or on
his fancy, that it should be carefully avoided in a
printed translation of the Word of God, which ought
to speak for itself, and be independent of either
note or comment. The allegorical sense is fit for
oral instruction alone; and that again, to older con-
verts only.
In our translation of the original text, then, our
bounden duty is, to adhere strictly and devoutly—
for we have to deal with inspired writings—to its
a) Literal sense, which consists in the meaning
. attached to it by the author.
Tn order to get at that meaning, we must become
acquainted with—
12
1) The spirit of the original writer. That implies -
a knowledge of—
2) The language of the original; and—
The peculiar idiom of that language at the time
the author wrote.
3) The time,
4) The manners and customs, and—
5) The external circumstances, of the times in
which the original author lived.
On the other hand, a truthful rendering of the
literal sense of the original text into another lan-
guage, implies—
1) An intimate acquaintance with that language,
as it is both written and spoken ;
2) With the genius, manners, and customs,
3) The religious tenets,
4) The ideas, notions, and prejudices, of the peo-
ple who speak it.
Hence it must appear that, in point of learning
alone, it is above the power of any one man to bring
to perfection the translation of the whole Word of
God. Besides, the mind, be it ever so well balanced,
will gravitate more or less towards itself, if left long
alone ; and the judgment, however correct, must get
warped in time, from want of interchange of thought
with others. And that must also tell upon the work
13
of translation, which, as regards the Word of God,
requires, above all things and besides a holy mind,
consummate judgment.
A translation of Holy Scripture, therefore, should
be the joint work of an assembly of men “ moved
by*the Holy Ghost,” and upheld by prayer, towards
the one great object,—to give the people, into whose
language they translate, the pure Word of God, whole
and undefiled.
But, as the success of a translation greatly de-
pends on the spirit in which the men engaged in it
labour among the people, it may not be out of place,
perhaps, to digress a little, by first making a few
preliminary remarks “on the spirit in which we
should carry on our intercourse with the heathen.”
Il.
First, then, Who are the heathen? They are our
“brethren, according to the flesh,”—children like
ourselves of the ‘ one God and Father of all,” who,
“hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to
dwell on all the face of the earth.” “ For we are also
his offspring.” They are therefore heirs, as well as
we, to God’s promises in Christ ; but they are “ alien-
ated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in
them, because of the blindness of their heart”; while ~
“ by grace we stand.”
14
Secondly, What are they ? They are our brethren,
and, like ourselves, some of them are taught, and some
are not; but, generally speaking, they are expert,
quick, inquisitive, gentle, willing to be led, and
often abundantly learned. As to their moral sense, —
it is either blunted or altogether lost, since it depends
on their religious belief, which, among the educated,
is a kind of esoteric worship, based on ancient writ-
ings and codes of morals ; while among the common
people it is only a system of gross, and, to them,
unmeaning rites.
But even the wise among them, as the holy Apos-
tle says, “by wisdom know not God.” Confucius, for
instance (Sh. Lun. iv. 1), not knowing what to think
of “Shin”—“puh yu kwae, li, lwan, Shin”—spoke of it
no more than of magic, fighting, or revolt. And yet,
constrained by the irresistible “law written in his
heart,” he says (ibid. ii. 1), “Tse joo tsae! Tse Shin joo
Shin tsae!” “ Worship (or sacrifice) as if it were a
reality; worship ‘Shin,’ as if ‘Shin’ were present!”
Mencius, on the other hand, declares, that we re-
ceive no good from any one but ourselves, “ puh wai,”
and says (Sh. Mang. iii. 6), that “man has in himself
the four principles of good.” While Plato (Phed.
c. 78), seems to give it up in despair, when (saying,
“Tt is most difficult, if not altogether impossible for
us to know in this life, τὸ σαφές, the truth, on which
we may rely and be safe”) he adds, ““We must either
find out wherein it lies; or, if that be impossible, we
must follow the best opinions of men, and risk upon
15
- that, as upon a raft, our passage through life. Unless,
indeed, some one could discover a safer and less
dangerous conveyance, ἢ λόγου θείου τινός, or, better
still, some divine Word.” The state of even such
men among the heathen, is well told by the Buddhist,
(Kah-gyur. vol. ii. Rgyatch. c. xiii.), who compares
“Srid * las ‘ hbyun "18. hgro* va’ rtag* tu * rmons |
| Vum ° par * chhud °* pai * vun ‘ va * hk’hor * va * vjin” ||
—the ignorant state of beings in this world to “ bees
buzzing inside a glass vase.”
Yet, amid the gloom that surrounds them, some of
those poor creatures “feel after God, if haply they
may find Him; for, in truth, He is not far from
them.” We well remember a certain festival of
Doorga, in Bengal. We were standing with a vene-
rable Brahman, by the sacred stream, on which
images of the goddess were carried in boats with
great pomp, and then thrown into the river, amid
the shouts of the multitude. We pointed to one of
them, and said to our learned friend: “ Dwija!
behold your gods! You see them first made with
hands, and then cast into the river.” He made a
significant gesture, and replied in his own sacred
tongue: “Kim etad Mahashaya, kim ὃ shalabhanji, k’hara,
kashtam ityadi kevalam! Murk’hanam etad asti; na cha
panditanam.” ‘‘ What is that, Sir? What! a doll,
straw, wood, or anything else you like. It is all very
well for stupid folks, but assuredly not for the wise.”
And then he quoted, with great emphasis, these
16
beautiful lines out of the ‘“‘ Laws of Manu” (ch. i. 5
“ Asididam tamobhutam, apragyatam, alak’shanam, |
Apratarkyam, avigyeyam, prasuptam iva sarvata: .” ||
“Tata: Swayambhur Bhagavan avyakto vyanjayan-n-idam |
Mahabhutadi, vrittauja: pradurasit tamonuda:.” ||
* Jo savatindriyagrahya: : suk’shmo s vyakta:, sanatana:, |
Sarvabhutamayo s chintya:,sa eva swayam utbabhau:.” ||
‘This world was as yet in darkness, imperceptible,
undefinable, undiscoverable by reason, indiscernible,
as if it were altogether asleep.” :
“Then He who exists by Himself (ΠῚ ΠΡ “1’Eter-
nel”), the Most High, who is Himself imperceptible,
He made this world, composed of great elements, per-
ceptible. He, the Almighty, showed Himself, and
dispelled the gloom.”
“He, whose nature is beyond our reach; whose
essence escapes our senses; who is indiscernible, but
eternal; He, the All-pervading Spirit, whom the
mind even cannot grasp, even He shone forth Him-
self.”
Thirdly, What are we who thus take upon ourselves
to teach the heathen? We are their brethren. To us
the oracles of God have been intrusted, that, pro-
fiting by them ourselves, we should make them known
to our Gentile brethren. If, therefore, we be “ con-
fident that we ourselves are guides of the blind,”
let us see, first, how and which way to lead them.
If we give ourselves as “ a light to them which are
17
in darkness,” let us see, next, that our “ light shines
before” them. It will not, then, be necessary to
thrust our “smoking flax” into their eyes, in order
“that they may see our good works.” But, behoid-
ing them, they will, as St. Paul says, ‘falling down
on their faces, worship God, and report that God is
in us of a truth.” For it cannot be, surely, that—
Ca LF πὸ ly
“The lamp that gives light should itself stand in
the dark.”
Thus impressed with our responsibility as teachers
of men, who are to receive their first impressions of
' what is holy and good from us, we will act with
wisdom, and consult the law of kindness, in our
intercourse with them. We will, then—
Fourthly,— Address them as brethren, who are as
yet strangers to us, as well as we to them. Wisdom,
then, will teach us to make ourselves acquainted, at
first, with what our ignorant brethren may believe
or think in common with us, in order, as it were,
to lessen the distance that separates us; and at once
to try and draw nearer to them in love. By thus
meeting them on their own ground, as a pledge to
τς them of our good-will, we shall induce them to listen
to us, as the first step towards their coming over to our
side. For it is only by beginning at what they know
and believe as well as we, that we, who have preju-
dices as well as they, can avoid giving needless
3
Lee Te eres ew ee es πα ee
\
a ital χὰ hl) δέν:
18
offence to theirs :—thus gain their confidence, and
then teach them what we know and believe, in order
to make them one with us in the knowledge of Christ.
They, too, have a religion as well as we; but their
religion is that of Cicero (de Nat. D. ii, 28), “a rele-
gendo,”—‘“‘vain repetitions”; as for instance (Laws
of Manu, ch. ii. 79, 82,)—
* Sahasrakritwastwabhyasya vahir etat trikam, dwija:, |
Mahato 5 pyenaso masat, twachevahir vimuchyate.” ||
“‘ The twice-born Brahman, who shall have repeated
these three (‘ Om,’ the ‘ vyahritis,’ and the ‘ gayatri’),
a thousand times, apart from men, shall, in a month,
be released from a great offence, as a serpent is from his
slough.”—Let us, then, show them, with kindness, that
our religion consists in changing only two letters in
theirs, in order to make it, as Lactantius (lib. iv. 28)
says, “a religando,”—the religion that will bind their
hearts—“ arctis relligionum nodis,” (Lucr. i. 931,)
with ours in the fear of God.
: ΘΟ f97 50 yp fovp [750
‘“‘ Bring back the wandering sheep to the fold with
kind words: when once they are in, then give them
the lesson,” says the Jewish adage, quoted by Rabbi
S. Jarchi, in his Com. on Eccles. iii. 7.
One or two examples will suffice to illustrate what
we mean.
If, for instance, we attempt to bring a Buddhist
Oe, eee
19 Σ
“to have faith in God,” let us at once fix his αἵ-
tention, by quoting his own authority on the point
(Kah-gyur. vol. iv. Rgyatch. c. iv.), and remind him
that, according to his own showing, “faith” is the
very first of the one-hundred-and-eight doors of
entrance to true religion.
“Grogs * po * dag* dad *pa* πὶ" ch’hos *snan°* pai‘ sgo’ ste |
| Bsam * pa * mi* phyed * par * hgyur *ro|”
“Friends!” said Byang-ch’hub-sems-d’pah, “ faith is
indeed a door to the doctrine of morals (religion): it
renders the mind undivided.” And that—
““ Dad * pai* stovs * τὶ ch’hos* snan ᾿ pai’ sgo° ste |
| Bdud : kyi * stovs‘las* yan * dag * pad* hdah* var’ gyur‘ro}”
“The power of faith is a door to religion: it
enables us to escape clean out of the power of the
devil,” etc.
If, on the other hand, we have to do with a Taouist,
let us introduce to him our doctrine of the “ Word,”
who “in the beginning was with God,” and “in whom
is life,” and gain a hearing by quoting this remarkable
passage in his own chief, Lao-tsze, on the Taou, or
Adyos, ch. i :—‘'Taou ko-taou, feich’hang. Taou wo-ming,
T’heen-Tih che chih.” “The Τοῦ (ὁ Adyos) that can be
expressed in words is not the eternal Taou. The Taou
that is not named is the origin of heaven and earth.”
And ch. iv. :—* Tsian hi! sse ch’hang thsun! wo puh
chi sui-che tsze. Seang Te-che sean!” ‘Oh how subtle
ON τὸς δα ξο ποῦς eee eS εοος, ep ἘΕΥΕ Φ, κι er π
= ES ᾿ ἄς
He is! He seems to have existed for ever. I know
not whose son He is. He appears to have been
before Te!”
If, again, we have to deal with a disciple of Con-
fucius, on the subject of “ good works,” and wish to
bring him round to hear of the only principle of good
morals—‘“ the fear of God,”—we may prepare him
for further instruction by reminding him of his mas-
ter’s words (Ch. Yung. c. xxix. 4) :—“ Keun-tsze chi
choo Kwei-Shin eul wo ee. Chi T’heen yay; pe shin i
Sse Shing-jin eul puh hwe.” ‘The wise, or superior,
man, in his daily life, realizes the constant presence
of Spirits, without any doubt. He acquaints himself
with Heaven, and looks forward without anxiety to
the coming of the Holy Man (‘é ἀνδρὶ ᾧ dpice” Acts
xviii. 31), at the end of the world!”—We might
also turn to account the remarks of Téng-thoti-’An,
who points to the four things in this chapter of
the Ch. Yung, which build up man’s virtue :—1)
Khao, “rule of conduct borrowed from antiquity
(the Word of God)”;—2) Kiau, ‘“ conformity to
Heaven (love God), and to Earth (and thy: neigh-
bour)” ;—3) Chi, “ witness of the Spirits (good con-
science)”; and,—4) Sze, “expectation of the Holy —
Man (final reward of good works).”—(See A. Ré-
musat’s ed. pages 367, 422, etc.) Surely, those are
materials to work upon, and ready to hand.
If, on the other hand, we address a Brahman on “‘the
nature of God,” we may open the book (Bhagavad-gita,
e. x. 19, 20, 23), and bid him read what Bhagavan
1. ol oly igual ile ΤΥ ὉΠ i
BV Fone 4 ex
ep δ
21
says of himself :—“ Hear O Arjuna! ‘Nasti anta vis-
tarasya me!’ There is no limit to my amplitude!”
“ Aham atma, Gurhakesha! sarvabhutashayast’hita: ; |
‘Aham adishcha, madiancha, bhutanam anta eva-cha.” ||
“Tam the spirit dwelling in the bodies of all
beings: I am the beginning, the middle, as well as
the end of them.”
“Ak’hsaranam akaro s smi, dwandwa: samasikasya-cha |
Aham evak’hsaya: kalo, dhataham Vishwatomuk’ha.” | |
“ Among the letters I am A (' ἐγώ εἰμι τό A’), the
copula in compounds; I am endless time; the omni-
present Preserver of all things.”
* Ahan sarvasya Prabhavo; matta: sarvam pravartate.”’ |
“Tam the Author of all, and by me all things
consist,” etc.
In thus borrowing from the heathen every useful
doctrine or sentiment they may possibly have in
common with us, we shall ‘start fair” with them, to
lead them onwards to God. In so doing we shall
only follow the example of our great chiefs, the holy
Apostles ; and that, too, both in preaching and writing.
a) As regards preaching. Behold St. Paul on
Mars’ hill, at Athens, surrounded by sharp and in-
quisitive Greeks. He does not insult them by railing
at their tutelary goddess ATHENE, as she stood glit-
tering on high before him, within her marble walls,
22
on the summit of her Acropolis. He does not need-
lessly offend their prejudices, by trampling under
foot her images, nor by throwing down the first
altar he meets with in his progress through the city.
Far from it. In his unprejudiced love, he makes him-
self “all things to all men,” without risk of principle,
“that he may by all means save some.” He there-
fore addresses his audience so as to gain their good-
will, and to rivet their attention. He does not flatter
them, but he takes them—“ des veniam bonus, oro,””—
“by the smooth handle.” He tells them they are
even too much addicted to the worship of the gods.
“For, as I passed by,” says the holy Apostle, “1 be-
held your devotions; I found an altar with this in-
scription, ‘TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.’” That is
his text. He then proceeds: ‘Whom, therefore,
ye ignorantly worship; Him declare I unto you!”
Wonderful tact! For St. Paul, no doubt, knew the
circumstances of the ““ βωμοὶ ἀνώνυμοι" (Diog. Laert.
¥. 10, 3) if he meant one of men. If he alluded to one
of the many altars with this inscription, ΘΕΟΙΣ.
ΑΣΊΑΣ. KAI. ΕΥ̓ΡΩΠΗΣ. KAI. AIBTHY. OEM.
ATNQZSTM. KAI. ZENM. (see Carpzov. Antiq. Sac.
Cod. pp. 84, 85, and 476, seg.), he did not, at all
events, apply at once the words, “τῷ ᾿Δγνώστῳ Θεῷ,"
to ᾿Ιάω, 1, but he applied them to their rightful
owner, to “the God” of those to whom he was going
to preach “the true God.” So also, in order to im-
press his hearers with his doctrine, he does not quote
from the Targums, of which they knew nothing.
_ But he quotes from some of “their own poets,” and
takes as witnesses to the truth of his teaching, no
less a man than the Athenian Cleanthes, and his own
countryman Aratus himself. ‘ You must believe what
I, a stranger, say; for I only repeat what certain of
your own poets have said, Tod γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν, ‘ We
are also his offspring.’” Whose offspring? Of “the
God” they ignorantly worshipped: and who is He?
Aratus says (Pheen. i. 1—5) :—
"Ex Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα---
-πάντῃ δὲ Avs κεχρήμεθα πάντες"
τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐιμέν ----
And Cleanthes (Hymn. in Joy. i. 5) :---
Κύδιστ᾽ ἀθανάτων, πολυώνυμε παγκρατὲς cuel
Ζεῦ,---φύσεως apynye—
ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν ---
While Plato (Timezeus, sec. 6, ed. Bek.) reminds those
same Athenians, that they were living in the land
first chosen by their tutelary goddess; and that they
were governed by laws which made them excel all
other nations in merit, “ καθά περ εἰκὸς γεννήματα καὶ
παιδεύματα θεῶν ὄντας," “as it behoved men born of
gods and brought up by them.” Those words were
familiar to the people of Athens, who claimed their
origin from him, of whom they said themselves that he
was “ Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν te.” (Sch. in Arat.5. Hom.
Il. ά. 544, etc.) Ζεύς, ““ ὅθεν ἔχομεν ἀεὶ τὸ ζῆν." (Stob.
Ecl. Phys. i. 2, 24.) He was Diespiter, sc. Dius-pater,
Jupiter, in short; the “unknown God” preached by
ca gs ce an ae
“
͵ 24
St. Paul himself. Hear that, O ye worshippers of
“Shin”! .
We see, then, how the Apostle, having won his
audience by showing them that they as well as he
were brethren,—children of the ‘unknown God,”
whose servant he was,—brings round his heathen
hearers from the worship of their own gods, to that of
the only true God. They listen attentively. They even
quietly bear being told they must “ not think that the
Godhead is like unto their Gods”; but that they ought
“to repent,” and “to prepare for the judgment to
come.” They hear of the “Just Judge” as of “ that
Man whom God hath ordained,” and through Him
of “the resurrection of the dead.” So that the same
men who exclaimed, at first, ‘‘ What will this babbler
say ?” now begged they might hear him again; while
others ‘clave unto him, and believed”; and (Lucian.
Philopatr. ad fin.), with Triephon, said: “Ἡμεῖς τὸν ἐν
᾿Αθήναις “Ayvwotov ἐφευρόντες, καὶ προσκυνήσαντες, χεῖρας
εἰς οὐρανὸν ἐκτείναντες, τούτῳ εὐχαριστήσομεν, ὡς καταξίιω-
θέντες τοιούτου κράτους ὑπήκοοι γενέσθαι." ““ΕῸΓ our part,
having found the ‘Unknown Gop’ of Athens, and
having worshipped Him, we will, with our hands lifted
up to heaven, thank Him for our having been thought
worthy to be made obedient to such a power as His.”
b) As St. Paul sets us the example in preaching,
so also does St, John, especially, show us how to
write for the heathen. What could be more hea-
thenish (since it was heretical as well), than the
25
use of the word Adyos, originally borrowed from the
Greek school, and made an eon by the Gnostics, who
were already numerous at Ephesus, where St. John
wrote? or yet the Platonic terms, ἀρχή, μονογενής, ζωή,
φῶς, and πνεῦμα, all of Gnostic stamp? But for that
very reason, and because St. John was writing to
refute the impious tenets of those heretics, he adopts
their own expressions, to show them what was the
ἀρχή, and what the Adyos, and the ζωή, and the φῶς, are
in truth ; and he opens his Gospel, written for them
especially, with these imposing words: “Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ
Adyos.” Had he adopted the style of St. Matthew,
who, for instance, wrote for Jews, he would have
missed his aim, and said nothing directly, to reach at
once the most prevalent heresy in his day. But,
under the guidance of the Hory-Guost, he made plain
to them, not that “Jesus is the Son of David”—for
that did not concern them much—but, that He is
ὁ Adyos, “the Word” of Gop, “ by whom, indeed, all
things were made”; that He exists ἐν ἀρχῆ, “ from
the beginning”; that He is ὁ μονογενής, “the only be-
gotten”; ἡ ζωή, “the life”; and τὸ φῶς, “the light,”
which sheds abroad among men, τὸ πνεῦμα, “ the
Spirit,” or divine light and life.
Such examples as those show us plainly that it is
no easy matter to become “thoroughly furnished”
unto the work of “ preaching among the Gentiles
the unsearchable riches of Christ.” Good intentions
alone are not enough to make “ good workmen” that
“need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word
26
of truth”; who, while they move among a class of
men, “del ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες apyal,” “ are
yet able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to
convince the gainsayers.” We enjoy no longer the
apostolic gifts of tongues and of miracles. We have
human powers and human energies only given us,
as instruments to work under God, and for Him.
We therefore come far, far behind the holy Apostles,
although in the same field of labour. And yet we
think sometimes we may improve upon what they
did, and accomplish more with less trouble!
‘evo nec studium sine divite vena,
Nec rude, quid possit, video ingenium: alterius sic
Altera poscit opem res, et conjurat amice.
Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam,
Multa tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit;
Abstinuit Venere et vino,”—
says Horace; “ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν ἵνα φθαρτὸν στέφανον λά-
βωσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἄφθαρτον," says St. Paul, who, in the
discharge of his apostolic office, made good use of the
learning he had acquired at the feet of Gamaliel, as
plain “Saul of Tarsus.” He sanctified his knowledge
in the using.
“But,” says, perhaps, some one who thinks so much
study for the work of the ministry needless, “it pleases
God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them
that believe.” So be it. But, that is not “by the
preaching of foolishness.” We have to preach Christ
crucified, and Him alone, “the wisdom of God and
the power of God.” That is all, and that is enough
when it is done. But that is the question. And as
a hint for private thought elsewhere than in India,
or China, Do we preach Him as He is, or do we
preach our own views of Hm? and do we, “like wise
master-builders,” really contribute to the edification
of his Holy Church, by laying no stubble, but only
precious stones “ upon the foundation of the Apostles
and Prophets, Jesus Curist Himself being the chief
corner-stone”? Pearls are precious things; but we
may, incautiously, cast them before swine. And the
‘““Word of God,’ which we all claim as our weapon,
is indeed “ sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing
even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.”
But, let us bear in mind, that “the sword” is not
the “drill” for it. This comes first. For if the
arm that holds the sword be dead, or paralyzed, or
even untaught, what happens? LEither the soldier
cannot grasp the hilt; or, if he does, he fancies he
fights, but it is only “as beating the air”; for he
neither knows where nor how to strike. So that,
after great exertions on his part, he sinks exhausted;
but his foe rises unhurt, and the battle has yet to
be won.
Who, then, is sufficient for these things ? Speaking
earnestly, and from experience, we say—very few.
And yet, unless things have much improved of late
years, what is sometimes the case, as regards mis-
sionaries? Men, from whatever cause, are scarce, or
28
unwilling to go out. And while, as Rabbi Tarphon
(Pirke Ay. ii. 15), says: mob ΠΟΝΟΣῚ ssp on
naan ἼΣΦ ΠῚ ΟΡ odypmi—* The day is short and
the work is increased; yet the workmen are slow,
though the reward be great” ;—and missionaries are
recruited from whence they can be had. Until lately,
a boy who was too dull to learn a trade, was at once
destined by his fond parents to become the promising
schoolmaster of the village. And we might mention
like instances of men sent abroad, with very good in-
tentions, no doubt, and on a fair salary too, to “do
something” as preachers of the Gospel in India or
China, who, having perhaps tried their abilities at
some common-place occupation at home, had com-
pletely failed. We do not attach blame to any one in
particular. We only wish to combat the somewhat
prevalent and very erroneous idea that, “ because,
for instance, a man could not ‘get on’ in the Church
at home, he may do well enough for the heathen
abroad.” He is out of sight, certainly; but that is all.
For, if “to do well” means to plant or to build up
the Church of Christ among the heathen, we can
assure our readers that a missionary requires, if pos-
sible, better training, more learning, more judgment,
more tact, more patience, more perseverance, for his
work, than most clergymen at home; although these
even cannot well do without a fair allowance of the
latter qualities especially. What happens, however ?
Some men arrive in India, and, we fear, also in China,
as missionaries, who are less able and worse informed
than the first educated native they meet with. This
one turns out rather too quick, too sharp, and,
perhaps, too learned also; and he soon finds out who
is the abler of the two. He then, civilly—
—‘ naso suspendit adunco
TIgnotum”—
and walks away with a smile from the man of God,
and from his cause.
Thence come, humanly speaking, the failures which,
apart from the irresistible effects of climate, seem to
mark the progress of some missionaries abroad. They
go forth into the finest field of labour, “ already white
to harvest,” to follow men, who, after having spent
their life in “ turning many to righteousness,” already
“shine like stars” in the Eastern firmament. But
because they “ count no cost,” perhaps, but that of the
journey, and because they do not weigh beforehand—
—‘ quid ferre recusent,”
‘Quid valeant humeri,’—
when they begin to work, they find themselves
unequal to their task. Thence too it is, that, among
the number of converts in such countries as India
and China, we hear of so few “ Areopagites,” and
that “honourable councillors” are fewer still. For it
is easier, we allow, to scatter tracts in abundance,
and innumerable copies of the Bible, among a multi-
tude always ready to receive, than to convince one
educated man who is a gainsayer, by bringing home
to him the error of his ways. And yet, in those
τῇ
δεν:
χε
30
countries, the multitude is only the lump, and educa-
ted or privileged men among them are the leaven.
Unless we be satisfied with unleavened bread alone,
we cannot leave these out. They are, through their
influence, as it were, the “head” of the people.
Nowhere more so than in China. And in India, one
single converted Brahman will influence the whole of
his heathen village, far more than the whole of that
village, if converted, could influence him, alone, and
still addicted te his Brahmanical rights. As, when out
on a foraging expedition, we may clear some brush-
wood, and throw down a few mud-huts; but the
country is not ours until its fortresses are taken.
When they fall, the rest follows ;—not until then.
Now, in India, the Brahmanical caste, especially,
and, in China, philosophy and national associations
of nearly four thousand years, are strongholds which,
as yet, have proved impregnable. And, one might
almost say, their garrisons deserve well of their coun-
try for defending them so well and so long; though
it has been against an inferior force; if not, against
an army partly disorganized.
“But,” says some well-meaning man, “ though we
walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For
the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty
through God to the pulling down of strong-holds.”
So they are, thank God! for no other weapons could
avail. But good weapons do not, of themselves, make
good soldiers. These must “endure hardness” and
“ strive lawfully.” Besides, there must be union in
the camp; there must be a well-concerted plan of
attack, and unity of action among the besiegers, led
by able officers, under one master-mind. If not, then
after a protracted siege and sundry defeats, the be-
siegers are at last, perhaps, obliged either to raise
the siege, or to ask the besieged city to capitulate, for
they cannot take it!—“ Well!” says another, “ but
we have-this treasure in earthen vessels, that the ex-
cellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”
Certainly; for what excellency or power could we
arrogate to ourselves? But who said that? Nota
raw recruit, but an Apostle, who, though he was
inspired, yet thought no better of himself! We,
however, are but plain “men,” to whom it pleases
God to grant a certain measure of His grace, in order
to enable us to do a little. We cannot, therefore,
presume, ἃ priori, on obtaining supernatural gifts.
Neither can we possibly be excused for going to
“fieht the good fight of faith,” unless we have, first,
done our best as men, to test our strength, to fit our
harness, and to try the temper of our sword. And
then, but only then,—like faithful soldiers of Christ,
before going forth to fight under His banner, (and
not every man his own way,) let us on our knees
receive His blessing; and then we may safely place
with Him alone the issue of the battle.
We all have heard of the young preacher, who,
treated his village congregation to what, in the
country, is called a “high,” or “fine” sermon. After
service, a village dame was overheard saying to one
32
of her friends: “A mighty fine sermon that!”
“Sure!” replied the other. “Ah, yes!” said the
first, ‘‘ that blessed word ‘ Mesopotamia,’ it does me
good!” It is often so, we know, even where the
minister and his people have the same ideas and
language in common. How, then, is it in China,
where, the spoken language is so hard to master, and
the people differ from a preacher of the Gospel,
“toto ccelo”; since they look upon him in the light
of a “demon” addressing them, the ‘ Celestials” ὃ
‘““Reported,”—“ Doing well!”
ΙΥ,
The foregoing remarks will, we believe, abundantly
show, that, in our intercourse with the heathen,
whether by word or in writing, we must be able to
borrow their own ideas, if we wish to make ourselves
understood of them. This general rule bears directly
on the work more immediately before us ; that of—
c) Translation, which is, generally speaking, the
rendering of, sometimes, new ideas, expressed in a lan-
guage unknown to a particular people, into the lan-
guage, and through ideas, for the most part in familiar
use, among that people. It is, in short, rendering
one idiom into another. > οἱ pl tae Gal gi 5!
“Through Thee alone I have attained to Truth, O
Thou Truru itself! Thou hast imparted it to me!
And here I stand to thank Thee, Lord! mine only
Sun and my God!” |
The Greeks therefore adopted, more frequently,
because more conformably to their ill-defined notions,
the plural, θεοί, “‘ gods”; or, with the article, οἱ θεοί,
“the gods” of Olympus. Thus, Orpheus hardly
ever uses the word θεός in his hymns to the “ gods,”
but always θεοί, “ gods.” Hesiod mentions the Deity
one-hundred-and-two times, viz., ninety-three times
in the plural, θεοί, and nine times in the singular,
θεός, in which it is three times feminine, once applied
to a tutelary god, and five times it refers to a god
previously mentioned ; but never with the article.
And Homer, in the Iliad, Books i., iii., and v., uses
the plural, θεοί, fifty-four times; while the singular,
θεός, is met with only nineteen times, with reference
to some particular god ;—except, perhaps, iii. 1. 381,
where ὥστε θεός may be taken ina more general sense;
yet never with the definite article, ὁ θεός. For Homer
could not well have defined his own indefinite notions
of θεός, to whom he attributes evil passions as well as
45
good. But we find that, as the ideas of the Greeks
on this subject became better defined (though still
incorrect, since they still spoke of “ gods,” θεοί), the
use of the article with θεός in the singular became also
more frequent, as, ¢.g., in Aristotle; and in Plato,
who says: δῆλον δὴ τοῦτό ye, ὡς τῶν ξυνακολουθησόντων
ἐσόμενον τῷ θεῷ δεῖ διανοηθῆναι. πάντα ἄνδρα: “It is
evident, then, that it behoves every man to decide on |
‘being of the number of those who follow after God,
τῷ Θεῷ." (de Legib. iv. 7.)
The Apostles, then, could not do better than to
adopt the term “ὁ @eds,” for the “only true God,”
thus dimly portrayed in the Greek philosophers ; and
having clearly established by their teaching, and,
perhaps, also by their quotations from the Septuagint,
who ὁ Θεός is, they used Θεός without the article, when
necessary, without risk of being misunderstood. “O Θεός,
in Plato, and ὁ Θεός, as used by St. Paul, both grew
out of the Θεός of Homer; but the Θεός of St. Paul is
qualified by ὁ Θεός, as used by him. ““ Θεός," in “ ὀυχ᾽ by’
ἄνευθε θεοῦ τάδε μαίνεται" (Il. v. 185), is different from
“ἐ Θεός, IN “ἡ yap κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη μετάνοιαν εἰς σωτηρίαν
ἀμεταμέλητον κατεργάζεται" [Ιὑ 15 the same word, but
with either a heathen or a godly meaning. We may
therefore expect to find, in the New Testament, the
use of ὁ Θεός more frequent than that of Θεός only,
which is actually the case; as, 6. g., in the Epistle to
the Romans, ὁ Θεός occurs one-hundred-and-thirteen,
and Θεός only thirty-nine, times.
In like manner, the use of the definite article pre-
46
fixed to the generic term for “God” or “ Deity,”
seems general in most languages that have an article,
in order to specify the “ one true God.” In the She-
mitic languages, either the article or the emphatic
form is used; but only seldom in Hebrew, in which
a special and distinctive mark was, of course, not re-
quired, since the.‘ people of God” knew of none other
God but Him. When they forsook Him, His name
went down to their idols: they did not raise the name
of their idols to His “‘ excellent greatness,” as other
nations did. Thus, in Coptic, as we have seen, the
definite article is always prefixed to μου, god,
to designate “God,” uort, dt, in Memphis, and
nuorte at Thebes. In Hungarian, also, the definite
article is always prefixed (except in exclamations :
Isten veled!) to Isten, “ God,” thus: “ Az Isten te-
remt,” God created. So also in Albanian, Περντί,
“God,” is always found with the definite article, thus :
“ σξίλι μούντ τὲ vreyéye φάγε βέτζμε ive Tepvria,”’—“ who
can forgive sins but ὁ Θεὸς only?” “ kiw irece μπὲ
Tleptive,” ἔχετε πίστιν (τοῦ) Θεοῦ.
As in Greek there is no indefinite article, since εἷς
means ‘ one,” not “a,”—for “ εἷς Θεὸς, μία πίστις,"
means “one God,” “one faith,” not “a god,” “a
faith,”—Oeds, not being an abstract noun, was under-
stood to mean “a god,” not “ the God,” Gop.” Thus,
“ore θεός" (Il. iii. 8381), where mention is made of
Venus, can only be rendered ‘like a god,” and not
“like God.” The use of the article was therefore ne-
cessary, in order to define the idea and to apply it to
47
the “ one God.” But in other languages, that have both
a definite and an indefinite article, the word “God”
takes neither article before it. The “one idea” is
best expressed by the term “‘God” alone. We never
find, 6. g., ‘sa Guth,” in Gothic, but always “ Guth,”
“God,” without the definite article; 6. σ. “ sunaus
Guths,” ὑιοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ; and “ habaith glaubein Guths,”
ἔχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ. This obtains also in other languages
derived from the Gothic, as, 6. 4.5 in English “God”; ποῦ.
_ “a” or “the God,” etc. But although in this instance
the use of either article would at once break the one-
ness of idea contained in “God”; yet another satis-
factory reason for the use of “God,” without the
article, lies, we believe, in the meaning of the word
“Guth,” “God,” itself. It is akin to “ Khuda,”
or ‘“ Khudai,” thus explained in the Persian dic-
tionary, gi Ql» p- 282: JI poy csldd 9 as
tice AL, al πὸ el μον els ob
eslsdel dyed a Used ieee Crwsl > Tog
δὰ, i Vol, , cele , “‘ Khuda’ and
‘Khudai,’ (with dhamm in the ee syllable), is a
name which belongs to the Most-High, like ‘ Innan’
and ‘En-m1ian’; and is contracted. Its complete
form is ‘Khuda,’ which means ‘a being who has
brought himself into existence’ (Swayambhi, self-
existent, 7), l’Eternel). It is also given to a
‘lord,’ or ‘king’ (3,\as.).” ‘“ Guth,” God, then, may
probably mean “ self-existent”; and so, it might be a
far better rendering for “Jehovah,” than “Lord.” But
since there can only be one self-existing “God,” πὸ
article is required to define Him better.
If, therefore, the term for “ God,” already existing
in a language, implies the object of the highest vene-
ration-of which the people is capable, it may be
adopted in the translation to express “ God”; provided
always, that it is appropriate, and not at variance with
the original. For instance, “ Exonm,” “ God,” means,
originally, “entitled to worship on account of His
power.” It would be rendered into Tibetan by “ Dkon-
meh’hog,” which means properly, “ Chief of rarity,”
“the rarest Being,’ and is used to denote “God.”
This word. does ποῦ, it is true, correspond in its ra-
dical meaning with the Hebrew original; but as it
corresponds fully with its acceptation, as a term of the
highest adoration, it is fit and admissible. If, then,
the best term already existing, be not adequate to ex-
press the original, it must be amended by teaching,
and brought to the standard of the original ; but in no
case should a “new term” be coined and introduced,
for that would be preaching “ strange gods,” indeed.
We have seen that this experiment has been tried
in China, without success, as it was formerly tried in
Japan, by the Jesuits, who rendered “ Deus,” by
“Deous.” But this signally failed; and the word
“kami” a “god,” has been adopted instead of
“Deous,” by Drs. Gutzlaff and Bettelheim, in their
respective versions of the New Testament into
Japanese.
In thus unscrupulously borrowing from a people
49
its own term to express “God,” we are borne out,
lastly,—by the ancient versions of Holy Scripture, all
of which adopted, for “ God,” the term in use at the
place and time the translation was made. Thus,—
The Targums adopt πος, “God,” “᾽ (which they
read ‘J78), and also δ, “object of fear,” in
the emphatic form, to render “ Ex,” “ Exoan,” or
‘* HLOHIM.” }
In like manner the Samaritan version has mmx 2. Λε.
or 552.) and sometimes ἘΠῚ Λ 2.5.0. “angels,” and
x2m«x, “powerful,” to express “God”; all in the
emphatic form.
The Syriac Peschito always reads, in the emphatic
form also, JX], who is Ss payo $05 oof ros
<0? Jaito jon 52 yootkas .4.:.» Ἰσιδ) yootkan
δυο, “worthy to be praised, high, and mighty in
valour over all gods; who isat the head of all genera-
tions, king from everlasting” (Lib. Adami, lib. i. p.10).
In Arabic, “ Exoutm” is rendered by allt EL-ILLAH,
“Gop,” always with the article, in order to distinguish
it from 4\ Ivan, “god,” applied formerly to idols;
as Herodotus tells us (lib. il. ὁ. 8), ““᾿Αράβιοι---
οὐνομάζουσι δὲ τὸν μὲν Avovucov, ᾿᾽Οροτάλ" τὴν δὲ Οὐρανίην,
᾿Αλιλάτ᾽᾽" ᾿Ὀροτάλ, OF ᾿Ολατάλ, is Sei ΑἹ “ Alah
ta’ala,” “God Most-High”; and ᾿Αλιλάτ colayy| “ Ali-
lahat,” means “goddesses.” Pocock (Specim. Hist.
Arab. p. 108) tells us that they worshipped those
gods, but as inferiors to “ Ex-m1aun,” “God,” whom
5
50
they addressed in this manner: HO) Cu peli! Soul
she ley aha CC » oo Od U6 3 “MT
devote myself to Thy service, O Gop! I devote myself
to Thee; I do so indeed! Thou hast no equal but Thy
fellow, over whom and all He has, Thou art alone
supreme.”
The Egyptian version adopts, as we have already
seen, pt ‘ Phnuti,” the usual abbreviation of Φι or Φ
“the,” and nort “god”; which corresponds exactly
with ὁ Θεός. It is the singular of nennorre or
nennort “our gods,” the words by which “ the gods
of Egypt” are mentioned in ancient Egyptian MSS.
(Champoll. Syst. Hier. vol. ii. p. 30, and pl. 13, etc.).
And here we cannot but notice the remarkable use of
the definite article Π in Mraz “ P-tah,” sometimes also
“ Phtah,” 604 or 604 (and not eas, as in Jablonskii
Panth. Ag. p. 50, and Opuse. t. 1, p. 382), “the
god” of Egypt. His monogram, in hieroglyphical in-
scriptions, as well as in hieratic MSS., is 0, the
- origin of the letter M, which itself is the definite
article. So that, in ancient Egypt, the article
“THE,” thus alone, stood for “the god” or “GOD”
(Salvolini, Camp. de Ramsés-le-grand, p. 98). For
Mraz or “Hgaoros (“udaicroc ere naz ne,” Zoéga
MS., in H. Brugsch. de L. prop. Aigypt. p. 17), like
Ζεύς, and the names of other such gods, were, each of
them, only the epithet of an “individual”-god, in their
respective countries. In Egypt, therefore, norre or
wort (or rep, arp Salvol. 1. c. and Uhlemann. Insc.
Roset. 1. 6, 7, p. 15, 16), and not, Πτὰς (like “ Θεός,
51
not “Ζεύς, in Greece) became, with the article n or Φ,
nnorre or pt, ὁ Θεός of Christians; as being alone
“pt tire uinort” “the God of gods” (Psalm
exxxv. 2, ed. Ideler.).
The Ethiopic version adopted AM\n “ Amlak”;
a word related to pb “Molech” or “ Moloch” of
Tyre and of Carthage, and applied to false gods also,
as in Acts xiv. 11, OLA: AAANT: ANA: TAY:
“‘and they said: The gods (amalekt) have taken the
likeness of men,” etc.
In order to render “ Exoni,” the Armenian ver-
sion, “regina versionum,” as Lacroze calls it, re-
tained the word “ [jumnews, Asdwadz,’ ‘“ God,”
which formerly belonged to idols. Thus, in the letter
of Valarsaces, king of Armenia, to Arsaces, king of
Persia (Moses Chor. lib. i. c. 8), we read: Upauh
Buguenp Ephph bk Sadavs apng width ἔκ yqunhkep
ny ἔκ & fuk dkp wumneSng “ Arsaces, king of the
earth and of the sea! whose person and image is like
unto our gods” (asdudzots).
The Georgian version renders “God” by “ Ghmert,”
“ Ghut,” “God,” equally applied to “ gods,” and of the
worst character too; as ¢.g., in Wakhoucht (Geogr.
of Georgia, p. 10), where he says that Pharnabaz set
up an idol called Armaz; to which his successors
“shesmines kerpni Zaden da Aphrodite” “added the
idols Zaden and Aphrodite,” “aramed ese Armas udi-
desi iqo qovelta ghmertta”; ‘nevertheless that Armaz
was held in greater honour than all the gods”
(ghmertta).
52
The Gothic version renders “God” by “Guth,”
which was, at one time perhaps, the name of an idol of
Northern-and of Middle Europe (comp. Odin, Wuo-
dan, Gwodan, Gudan, etc. Grim. D.M. p. 120, seq.,
Edd. Lex. Myth. pp. 598, 606, 631, seg.; which, how-
ever, as well as “‘ Wadda,” (Abulfeda H. anteisl. p.
14), rather belong to “ Bud,” or “ Budd’ha”’).
Lastly, the Slavonic version adopted the term
“ Bogh,” “God”; a word of Indian origin, probably
from “ B’haga,” which Culliica B’hatta (Comm. on
Laws of Manu, p. 5) says, expresses “‘ sovereignty” :
“sishwaryadinam “ B’haga” shabdo vachaka.” Hence
comes “ Bhagavan”; and also, perhaps, the Persian e
“ Bagh,” which is said in the Li οἱ» to be x» al
“the name of an idol.” :
Vv,
The foregoing remarks will have prepared the way
for the consideration of the question at issue,—Is
there, or is there not, in Chinese, an appropriate term
to render ody ExLonm and ΘΕΟΣ To which
. must be added by Et, Hoy Exon, and Ὃ ΘΕΟΣ; all
equally translated “ Gop.”
Several terms, we find, have been invented in order
to render “God” into Chinese; and, as a matter of
course, they have been “ discarded each in succession”
(see p. 10, and p. 12, of “ Shin v. Shang-Te”). We
will, therefore, leave their shades in peace,—Dr.
Bowring’s Egyptian symbol ©! included,—and pro-
53
ceed to consider only the three terms found in classi-
eal Chinese, that appear available for the rendering
of “ God.”
These are T7HEEN, SHIN, and SHANG-TE.
But ere we enter into the subject, we must—
First, Examine briefly the literal meaning of. the
five terms for “God” in Holy Scripture ; then—
Secondly, Consider the literal meaning of each of
the three terms, T’HEEN, Surin, and SHanc-Tz, in clas-
sical works. And then— |
Thirdly, We will show, from the Chinese version
of Scripture itself, which of those three terms can
alone claim to stand as a substitute for Ex, Exoan,
Etoum, ΘΕΟΣ, and ‘O ΘΕΟΣ, in the Word of God.
I. First, then, as to the literal sense of IN Lass ΤῊ Daas
Pl, OYON.
It is, properly speaking, the part. Kal of the
primitive root 78, or On (like MD from Mi or
MD; WY, UY, etc.). This root, although obsolete in He-
brew as “‘ verb,” is, nevertheless, frequently met with
in its derivatives, Oa, pois, bs Oey, Oy, nox, etc. ;
and in the Sabean, δ ἢ “ powerful.” Its correspond-
ing forms in Arabic, 1 sh from whence Syl “ first,”
“foremost,” and JL! “ government,” etc., are also
Σ
in common use (comp. ba Sm and gro, Att. εἱλέω,
ἴχλω, etc., which convey the idea of “ twisting”
54
—like the gnarled roots of the oak, “‘roboris”; strong
and firm).
The root Dw or, On, then, means—
a) to be “strong,” or “ powerful”; and thence—
δὴ) to “take precedence”; to “ be first.”
Those two senses are closely connected; and they
are sometimes found in the same derivative; 6. g.,
bys pl. pro, and bw pl. pow. “powerful,” “ chiefs,”
among men. N, then, means —
1) “A powerful man,” ἧρως ; 6. 4., DMI ὍΝ ἀρχὼν
ἐθνῶν (Ezek. χχχὶ. 11.), and pl. Ὁ ΞΔ by, οἱ γίγαντες
(Ezek. xxxii. 21, etc.).
2) “Power,” “strength”; 6. 9., mivyd Ὁ Syb-wn
my) Do2y — “It is in the power of my hand to do
you harm,” ἰσχύει ἡ χείρ μου (Gen. xxxi. 29, etc.).
3) “GOD.” In prose it is seldom found alone; but
in general, it is construed with an attribute, or witha
genitive; as 6: 5.) troy bs (‘Enwodv), the Most High
God” (Gen. xiv. 20, 22); "IY by, “the Almighty
God,” ‘8, pM om, Ἢ, NID dy (Exod. xx. 5,
etc.). It is also joined with Diya oy Syn
“God, the God of thy father” (Gen. xlvi. 3, etc.).
In poetical language, on the contrary, it is very
frequently found alone; as, δὸς WIN YIN dns
“ T would seek unto God,” etc. (Job v. 8, viii. 5, 18,
20, etc. ).—It isalsoapplied to “a false god,” ἀν ἫΝ
(Is. xliv. 15 ),—or joined to an attribute, as, 133, ἢ] bs
TES, AMA ΝΣ (Judges viii. 4, 33, etc.). It is evi-
oa
55
dent, however, that to such “gods” the word bs is
applied only by synecdoche, since, in Deut. xxxii. 21,
they are said to be ben “no god.” by is also
used—
4) in construction, with the meaning, “of God,” as
an attribute of excellence or of power”; 6. φ. 28 ‘IS
“the cedars of God,” “goodly cedars” (Psalm Ixxx.
11);—7S “1 “ great mountains” (Psalm xxxvi.
7, etc.) (comp. Hom. Il. a. 141, εἰς ἅλα δῖαν, δῖος
᾿Αχιλλεύς ;— Hesiod. Op. 299, Siov γένος ; and 479,
χθόνα δῖαν, comp. with ἀπείρονα γαῖαν, v. 487; Call. L.
p: 97, δῖα γύναι, etc.).
by ‘“ Ex,” is also to be traced in other Shemitic
dialects. Sanchoniatho (ed. Orell. p. 24) says: “Κατὰ
τούτους γίνεταί τις ᾿Ελιοῦν ( Y) καλούμενος “Ὕψιστος,
παραλαβών δὲ ὁ Οὐρανὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀρχὴν--- ποιεῖται
παῖδας δ᾽ λον (ON, Sal) τὸν καὶ Κρόνον," κιτλ. Damas-
cius (in Bochart Geog. Sac. ο. 707) says 4180, ““ Φοίνικοι
καὶ Σύροι τὸν Κρόνον "HX καὶ Βήλ καὶ Βολάθην {MN ba)
ἐπονομάζουσιν" (see also Damasc., p. 384, ed. Kopp);
to which the “apocryphal” Sanchoniatho (c. vi. p. 18)
adds, that the allies of In (98) “’Enoelw ἐπεκλήθησαν,"
were called Exoim (Οὐλωμὸς, in Damascius, p. 385).
From “ Iz,” or “Ixus,” Cumberland (Orig. Gent. v. i.
pp. 29 and 473) derives “ In1um” (see also Nork.
Bibl. Myth. v. i. p. 142; Creuzer Symb. v. ii. p. 347;
Boetticher R. Myth. Sem. pp. 4, 5), ete.
The radical “ Ex.” plays also a conspicuous part in
Faber’s “Cabiri,” and in his “Pagan Idolatry”; as also
56
in Bryant’s Anc. Mythology throughout (see, espe-
cially, v. i. p. 16, seg., and p. 297, where Osprph
“ Hom-pi-El,” the oracle of Ham (the Sun), is given’
as the etymology of ’Oudardv ἐριβρόμου χθόνος (Pind.
P. Od. 6); while the same radicals, transposed, be-
come, in his hands, *5” sph-by “* El-Hom-pi,” "Ολυμπος).
Movers (Phéniz. v. i. p. 254, seg.), and Seyffarth
(Grundsiitze der M. pp. 52, 66), are worth reading,
in connection with this subject.
In Sy, too, we may probably look for the root of
Ἥλιος or ᾿Ηέλιος (comp. FN yb 333 &'& Psalm
xix. 6, 7. “ ἄναξ ᾿Απόλλων," etc.), the first god wor-
shipped by the heathen, Divs or Agni, the Sun. Sick-
ler (Cadmus, pp. 65, 104) derives “Ἥλιος from yn,
and Ἠέλιος ar ‘8, which he translates, ‘the Power
that gives light,” and, “the greatest Power.” But,
Lib. Adami, 1. i. p. 46, and also p. 88, decides
the question : 1402] oof) cLratoeS oraanael” LA
oticas “\\a} Δ.) σίας 20,0 σιίραφ “Do not wor-
ship the Sun whose name is Adonai (or Adoni),
whose name is Kadusch (72), whose name is Ex,
Ex! (or In, In!)”—a name which seems alluded to in
Isaiah xiv. 13, “uly uciadsas ὃ “from the stars
of In.”—(In Psalm xxii. 20, St. Matt. xxvii. 46, St.
Mark xv. 46, the Hebrew word by has been pur-
posely retained in the Syriac.)—So that Ἠέλιος or
"Hwos.might come from YX"N'T Osa ; or from wiry
“My god, Agni!” Unless some fistipld of Bryant
would make it up of Yeo)’ wd’, "Hy-oce, “ My god!
myrtles !”—exclamations (probably) frequent at By-
57
blus, during the festivals of Adoni (Ἄδωνις), and
Ba’altis (’Adpodirn), when, as Bion (Epit. Ad. 74, 77)
tells us, Venus —
—* πόθει καὶ στυγνὸν "Admvy,”
and exclaims:
““Paive δέ μιν μύρτοισιν, ἀλείφασι, paive μύροισι" 1
We find 5¥ also preserved in Pheenician names;
e.g., “ Cadmilus,” the fourth Cabirus, who was of
Pheenician extraction, is Sem tp ( who stands before
God”; or (according to Boch. Hieroz. ii. 36), Gye Dp
“the oracle of God” (see also Gesen. Mon. Phen.
p. 399, seg.).—We find it also among the Sabzans;
e.g., Lib. Adami, pp. 294, 309, seg: Sultods Sujata.
τ δὼ. \iljaco White δηλ το Hamam-il,
Hathm-il, and Nothr-il, and Zarz-il, and Pashr-il, and
Haltz-il:—and in Ethiopic writings too, Lib. Enoch.
9. vil. 9, OWE : AMALUS 2 APAADEU® : MPH:
ΗΦ ΔΈ : PANN: HENNCAAA: MARA: 2PM:
£40.0 :— And these are the names of their angels:
Samyaza, who is chief of them, Urakibarme-el, Tha-
mi-el, Ramu-el, Dan-el,” etc.
In the Samar. Pentateuch ON is rendered, either
‘by 2%, to distinguish it from 2%, when taken to mean
“strength”; or by x2m% “ powerful”; as, Melchize-
dec, in Gen. xiv. 18, is said to be "“χδτηγα, x2M°K2" 334
“priest to the Powerful in strength.”—Lastly, in
Arabic we find also” Jl “lun,” as a name for “' God.”
58
Another etymology for by has been proposed by
Schultens (Com. in Prov. p. 23), where, speaking of
the particle 78, he says: “ radix est M8, pro *?8,
vel by, que Arab. est }\ and 1") adstrinxit, con-
strinxit. Inde, secundario adscitum adstringit vin-
culo jurejurandi quod ἀμ} cum pl. \y\; inde bs θεὸς
ὅρκιος, Deus jurisjurandi preses et sancitor. Qui alia
docent analogie non litant.” Doctors differ, indeed!
for J. D. Michaelis offers ΟἹ “a benefit”; and Gese-
nius favours him with |ys “Gott,” as subsidiary,
“ quod vulgo-‘bonum’ significare volunt.” But we
have seen that, even among us,—“ quandoque bonus
dormitat Homerus.” .
For it is placed beyond doubt that Sy comes from
bys or by, by the fact, that all participles of verbs “Ὁ
have a long = zeri, which does not alter in construc-
tion ;—thus ?8 from 78 makes 78 in constr.; 6. g.,
83) by, Ἢ by. Whereas, in words derived from
verbs nay the = zeri is shortened in construction;
θ. Jey by from τὸν makes ?% or ᾿ξ in constr. as,
PIAS, YYAY, ND, ote.
The one leading idea in by, then, to be gathered
from the foregoing remarks, is that of power, and
therefore of pre- or ea-cellence. GOD is called ON
Ex, as being Tue Micuty, toe ONE ΑΒΟΥ͂Β Att,
Tue First.
From that idea of power, and excellence, grows,
as a matter of course, a feeling of awe, which power
59
inspires, and which leads men to respect, and to
worship it. Thus, from Oy “ God,” comes MX “to
swear by God”; and probably, also, noe, which, al-
though not found in Hebrew as a root, is of frequent
occurrence in Arabic: {j\ and 111: to “ worship,”
Sey
to “serve,” whence eal and δι “worship”; and all
to “stand in awe”; from whence some derive a
“* TLAHOUN,” πος “ Exoan,” “Gop.” He is called
thus, they say, s ἌΝ 4), because “ He j is feared and
worshipped.”
And here, we may compare the name for “ God”
in Ethiopic, A®An “ Amlak,” which is derived from
Af*"n “ Amlaka,” fourth conj. of ®An “ Malaka,”
to “command,” or “govern”; ®n, “ Malaki,” a
“sovereign”; from whence An “ Amlaka,”’ to
“honour a sovereign,” λατρεύειν ; to “ serve as God.”
Hence AS*n “ Amlak,” the object of that worship,
Gop; ὁ. g-, Matt. iv. 10, “ γέγραπται yap AAIHANAC:
APAnN : THI: Onl : AheER: FLAN: Κύριον
τὸν Θεόν σοῦ (Amlak’ka) προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ
λατρεύσεις" (tamlak).
As regards Πὰς, however, it would appear more
probable that, being itself an intensitive form of its
primitive 28, it became parent to the verb nbs to
“worship,” than vice versa. One thing, however, is
certain, that those roots are all akin to one another;
and that Os (da, Oy) is most likely the oldest, as it
is the simplest of them all. Fiirst Concord. Heb.
60
v. FIPS says: 0095 BID) pdf 73> 1D τὸν j? 27S
oom ps proces pd oom «ὉΠΟΎ nds opp sw 10) PS
“Tt isa ἶρις πος np coh Ox bee cos ppm ofa asd
verb derived from FON, and from its intensitive sig-
nification (plur.) DION. The root of both (FON
and How) is by like as among the Arabs, where the
verb MOX is derived from the noun [sui]. And,
behold, according to this explanation, you are con-
strained to bring the word (8) to a fountain-head,
and under the root 75%, bs ; from whence nox, now.”
(See also the remarks of Dathe, in Glassii Philol. Sac.
vy. 1. p. 60, seq.)
We have, then, the ideas of power and supremacy,
as well as of adoration of that power, expressed in—
I. FON or MYON “Exoan,” “Gov.” In Chald.
nox Erin, from whence WPS “divine,” etc. In Syr.
and Sab. JaX7Y “ Anono,” “Gop”; from whence
Lak) “divine,” and aX? “alah,” to “reckon as
God.” In Samar. 324% “ Anan,” “ God,” thence
ANAL “divinity.” In Arabic a, or al “ Tra-
Houn,” or “ Inan,” “God”; from whence tll, cogil,
etc. πος is seldom used in the singular; and then,
Gesenius says, only as, “either an Arameism, in
poetry, or in inferior style.” It means —
1) “any god,” 18) Nd niby-bs by) “ he will not
61
regard any god” (Dan. xi. 37; Job xii. 6; Hab. i. 11;
etc.). But 28 means especially —
2) “GOD”—for mioyn ὁ Θεός---κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ; 6. J.
Sys my mete * Will not God search it out
from above?” (Job iii. 4, etc.) And its plural—
TL. OWON “Exon,” which is far more fre-
quent, is used —
A—in a plural sense, for —
1) “all gods” ;---Θεοί; 6. g., DISD ros the “ gods
of Egypt” (Exod. xii. 12)— pos bap mim. Sig
“the Lord is greater than all gods” (Exod. xvii. 11;
2 Kings xix. 18), etc.
2) “angels”; who are also called Dios ‘2 “sons
of God” (Psalms Ixxxii. 1, xevii. 7, etc.).
3) “kings” and “princes”; “judges” and “ ma-
gistrates” (Psalm Ixxxii. 1,6; Exod. xxi. 6, etc.).
But OFAN is also used —
B—in a singular sense, for —
1) “Tue ONE Gop,—GOD.” In this case, espe-
cially, the plural is the “ pluralis majestaticus vel ex-
cellentiz” ; mp2> 39 the plural of “ powers or virtues,”
which is used in expressions of sovereignty, as, 6. g.,
DIS, AW, pps, etc. (See Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 663,
seq., and Hebr. Gr. p. 237, seq., whatever Ewald, Hebr.
Gr. p. 641, 3, may say against it. Also Danzii In-
terpr. Ebr. Chald. p. 26, seg., and p. 149.) Some cri-
62
tics, however, think that in ΤΟΝ, the plural form,
is intended only to imply “plurality of persons” in
God. For instance, Glassius (Gram. Sacra, can.
xvii. and can. xxv. not., or vol. i. p. 44, seq., of his
Philol. Sacra, ed. Dathe) says:—1) Nomen nriby
non est nomen appellativum, sed proprium; nec in
significato suo formali dominium seu dominatum notat.
Igitur ad hanc regulam, que de vocibus appellativis,
(292 JIN) dominium significantibus, agit, referri non
debet. Certum igitur esto, Elohim per se non de-
‘ notare dominium, etc.—2) Cur nomen hoc plurale in
SS. Deus sibi indiderit—e scripto verbo Dei eruen-
dum et cognoscendum est. Illud vero Sacrosanctz
Triados personarum in una simplicissima essentia
divina, mysterium clarissime tradit, et voce plurali
DIPS idem mysterium exprimi, descriptio creatoris
Elohim Gen. i., et alibi seepius in SS. tradita ostendit.
Addendum tamen, nomen Elohim proximo significatu
personarum pluralitatem in Divina essentia tantum
innuere, non determinate Trinitatem, etc. (Dathe
refutes him in a note, ad 1.)δ. And Buxtorf, Lex.
Heb. v. pvby says: ‘ Cabalistice nbs dicitur,”
quod On by “* Deus sint,” etc.
But the fact that ὈΠῸΝ is also applied in Holy
Scripture to “one idol” only, as well as to Gop,
“hos abunde confutat,” says Gesenius (Thes. L. H.
p- 96). For, if DYI78 be not, generally speaking, “a
term to express only adoration, and the highest pos-
sible degree of veneration for God, irrespective of the
persons of his Triune Essence,” why then, may we
63
ask, is poy not always used? And why is it inter-
changed, almost arbitrarily, with Oy. and especially
with πον in the singular; both of which we find in
the Hebrew text in precisely the same acceptation as
oy ? Aben-Ezra is of this opinion, when he says :
Gen. 1. 1, γρὴρ ΤῊ ot pnp 039 ped owbh 5 ww ob whip ph
W2 0/37 PPS 577} Sy ΡΨ N39 ΤΥ EPH pob3i—39 7 ὁ Ὁ’ pred 59 "2
‘7 ofv3) ov7h “ After that we have found ποις, we
know that ὈΠῸΝ is the plural thereof; and the origin
of the use of it is according to the genius of the lan-
guage; for every tongue has its own honorific terms;
—and, in the ‘holy tongue,’ the way to express
‘honour,’ as, for instance, to a superior, is, to use
the plural, as in Adonim (‘ lords,’ for Lord), Ba’alim
(‘ masters,’ for Master, etc. ).”
Except in the Samaritan Pentateuch, therefore,
where ὈΠῸΝ is occasionally rendered »smrx2%, and in
the Targum of Onkelos, where it is sometimes found
as pmo (e.g. Gen. ix. 6), with a plural significa-
tion, poy is always rendered by the singular in the
ancient versions. In the Targums, it is translated
by maDN or more frequently by %; in Syriac, by
aX]; and in Arabic, by al! Ex-Innan, ὁ Θεός.
The principal instances besides poy which occur
to us at present, of the usual name for “God” being
a plural form, are the Persian οἷον ‘ Yazpan,” and
the Cingalese “ Drviyan.” “ YazpAn” is, like “ E-
LOHIM,” ἃ plural with, for the most part, a singular
signification. It is rendered in Persian dictionaries
-
64
by 5,6 “Tafri,” a Tatar word, used in Uighur, and
in most other Turkish dialects, except the Osmanli, to
mean “ Heaven,” and also the “ Most High,” God.
““Yazdan” is thus explained in the pit οἱ» already
quoted (p. 790, etc.), σῦν ἡ & Sl ee Klop
Sd GS Gly ke de eal Ye las
dill y oye by IS 2 5 Gul pe Gelb os
ae ar ΕΝ ΟΝ, Lee καλὰ 5 day
sah iT >» wR lye sadiy 37 EASUD 5 uF
sla ὑπὸ, Yb close Lae» weal lew
duyS \yGe “ Yazdan—with Feth’, Sukun, etce.—It
is one of the names of God, the Most-High, the glori-
ous God. It is also the name of an angel, the active
principle of good, who is liable to neither passion nor
evil. Others say that ‘ Yazdan’ is the creator of
good, and that ‘ Ahriman’ is the creator of evil: and
also that Yazdan created the light (‘ Yazdan,’ 7. ¢.,
‘ Ahuramazda—Khudai’; Wilson P. R. p. 228; and
J. G. Rhode, Relig. des Zendv. p. 209, seg.), and
Ahriman, darkness. Doctors call Yazdan a false
god; but poets call the true God by that name.”
“Yazad,” and “ Yazdan,” are mentioned as two
out of the one-hundred-and-ten names for “God”
(‘¢ one-hundred-and-one,” Wilson P. R. p. 110.) in use
among the Parsees, by Hyde (de Rel. v. Pers. p. 175);
who at p. 178, says: “‘insuper sciendum est quod Dei
vocabulum Yezad (Ized) aliquando tribuitur ange-
lis,” etc. (exactly like E778) ; ὁ. g. “ Vanand- Yezad,”
65
“Ham-Yezad,” etc. The plural of ὁ» “ Yazd” is
“Yazdan,” which occurs frequently in the Minok-
hired; 6. φ. ii. 18, 27; iii. 2, etc. It represents, in
the singular, the Zend “ Yazata,” (Sanscr. “ ya-
jata,”) which means “ worthy of worship”; as, for
instance, in this passage of the Yagna, ch. i. 9, Ni-
vaedayemi . handarayemi . Mithrahe . vouru . gaoyaotois.
hazanroghaosahe . baevare . chasmano . aochtonamano. Ya-
zatahe; “I call upon, I praise Mithra, who multiplies
(cattle) living things; who has a thousand ears and
ten-thousand eyes, and is called by the name of
Yazata.” (Burnouf, Yacna. p. 209. seq., 376, etc.).
*¢ Yazdan,” or “ Yazata,” is like Ex, Exoan, and
Etouim, both the attribute and the name of deities,
in the Zend religion (Spiegel, Pars. Spr. p. 139, seq.,
190; Wilson, P. R. pp. 106,129). And it seems to
correspond with O'%, not only in its being a name
in the plural, given to God, in a singular sense, but
also in its application, like Exon, to angels, and to
more deities than one. ‘“ Yazdan,” then, answers
to “ θεοί, when this is used collectively in a singu-
lar sense; as, 6. 9.7) “ θεοί φύουσιν ἀνθρώποις dpévas”—
“ἐ θεῶν βία καὶ νέμεσις" (Soph.). Although “ Yazdan”
is very frequent in Persian poets (as, 6. 4φ., Chr. Sh.
Nam. ii. v. 204, ed. Vullers, Si lox phos 2
Liss, etc.), it has not been adopted in any of the
Persian versions of the Bible for “God.” The only
word in use is ys, the name by which Ahurmazd calls
himself, “ Khuda sam humnam,” “ KHUDA is my name,”
or “I am self-produced” (see Wilson, P. R. p. 110).
6
66
In like manner, in Cingalese, ‘‘ Devryan” (the ac-
cusative plural of “ Devi,” or “ Deviya,” “a god”), is
declined and used in a singular sense, out of respect.
Thus, “ Deviyan visin—polavat metchivai”—‘ The earth
was created by God” (instr. θεοῖς), “ Deviyangé putiyd,”
“‘ sons of God” (θεῶν), ἢ ete. |
We may, perhaps, also mention, in connection with
this subject, the word “ΝΣ, DIS “ Addir, Addirim,”
“ oreat, noble, magnificent,” etc.,— applied to the
“name” of God (Psalm viii. 2)—to God Himself
(Psalm Ixxvi. 5)—to princes (Nah. ii. 6, ii. 18)—
to kings (Psalm cxxxvi. 18)—to saints (Psalm
xvi. 3)—and to gods (1 Sam. iv. 8). sory? 5
moyn ΡΥ ΝΠ ody ὍΘ “Who shall: deliver us
‘out of the hand of these mighty gods?” A.V.—and
(Isaiah x. 34) IIS “By the Mighty One.” In this
latter acceptation, especially, it may be compared, as
Uhlemann does (Quousq. tandem? pp. 15, 16), with
the ancient Egyptian word ATiR, or rep Salvol.
* The affix of “ respect,” “ wahanss,” is added to
Deviyan, thus, ‘“Deviyan-wahansé”; which stands to
“Deviyan” considered as a respectful address, as
“Elohim” does to “ Eloah”—as an appellative for
“God.” The choice of either term caused great ex-
citement in Ceylon some years ago. The edition of
the Bible printed in 1834, uses “Deviyan” and “De-
viyo.” The edition of 1840 adopts “ Deviyanhanse”
and “ Deviyanwahanse.”
(Analyse de Textes, a. Egypt. p. 198, seg.)—or
norrap (H. Brugsch. Sai-an-Sinsin, pp. 13, 1, 3, 7, 8,
pp- 16, 6, pp. 17, 1, etce.), and NeTeR (de Rougé,
Mém. p. 165)—in Coptic norte “ god.”
For our own part, and since the necessary doctrine
of the Most Holy Trinity cannot be determined by
the plural D'T7N alone, we are well satisfied to take
this plural, practically, as an expression of respect
only, for GOD,—Three in ONE. Anything else,
belongs to the mysterious nature of Him before whom -
Angels even veil their faces; and whom we, poor
sinners, shall never see, till—if we be found worthy—
“we shall know Him even as we are known of Him.”
Until then, let us in awe, but in faith and hope, lay
our finger on our mouth, and worship in silence. We
might, possibly, “ intrude into those things which we
have not seen,” and “ be vainly puffed up in our fleshly
mind.” It would appear, therefore, sufficient, that
in rendering Ὡ ΤΊ δ, we should adopt a term which,
like 5S, implies “ THE ONE,” and not “any.”
The plural prox is found governed by a verb in
the singular; as, ¢.9., pid NT “creavit dii,” 2.¢.,
“‘qualibet persona divina,”’ says Danz. (Interpr. Eb.
Chald. p. 149)—and also by a verb in the plural; as,
6. 5... WNIT ΠΥ pws mvys “Let us make man,
after our own image and similitude” (Gen. i. 26;
xxxy. 7). OJ is also construed with an adjective
in the singular; as, Ἢ pry ; and in the plural,
68
DY pring “The living God.” And it is used to
mean—
1) “a god.” DON |S “There is no god” (Psalm
xiv. l, etc.).
2) “an idol.” 398 faa“ Dagon our god”
(1 Sam. νυ. 7).
3) “a tutelary god.”—Oeds ἐπιχώριος, pros mS
“Where is your God?” (Deut. xxxii. 37; Joel ii. 17;
Jonah i. 5, etc.).
4) emphatically, “GOD,” with the article DT>NT -
“The only true God”; as in Arabic, a) Ex-anan,
ὁ Θεός ; for instance, al Mal ¥ “there is no God
but Ex-mnan,” do, ἢ cll» 5 US, p> py “Yea!
He is, He alone! and everything perishes, except
Himself” (Epist. Ibn. Toph. ed. Poc. p. 117), ΠΤ" "5
proyn Nin. “For the Lord He is God” (Deut. iv.
35, etc.).
5) without the article, ortos also “GOD.” It
is for the most part interchanged with MIM; ¢.g., ΤΙΝ
mim’ and pds mo, etc. “Generally speaking,”
says Gesenius (Thes. L. Heb. p. 97), “in the historical
style, ὦ. ¢., Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2
Kings (and in the Proverbs), M7’ is more frequently
met with than poy. In Job, MM occurs in the
prologue, which is in prose; but in the poetical parts
we find "ἃ and poy. In later writers, z.¢., Eccle-
siastes, Jonah, Daniel, etc., MM is scarcely to be met
with. In the Psalms it varies according to their
69
date. In Genesis, the use of 717" in some chapters,
and that of DYN in others, is so remarkable, as to
have induced some critics to suppose the book to
have been written from two different documents.”
And Fiirst, Conc. Heb. p. 48, says :—“ commentitiis et
fictis diis omnibus vi potentifque superior, qua voca-
buli origine factum est, ut synagoga inter Elohim et
Jehova sic discerneret, ut illud potentiam jmf> p20-by3)
($3n> 123 Sew) y3f vindicemque scelerum justitiam,* —
hoc misericordiam gratiamque significare diceret.”
6) ὈΠῸΝ is used adjectively (like bs, 4); 6. 9,
pros 3 “The mountain of God,” 7.¢., “a very
high mountain” (Psalm lxviii. 16, etc.).
7) also adverbially, with a prefix; as, nding εν"
prion “urbs divinitus magna” (Jonah ii. 3). The
Greek expression “ ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ" (Acts viii. 20,
and 2 Cor. x. 4) corresponds to prod s—if it be
not itself a Hebraism. (See also, Schultens, Harir.
Consess. iv. p. 36 ; and compare ἘΆΝ; with. Σ)Ὁ al ;
and this, too, with Cic. de Orat. i. 23, and ii. 42,
** dicendo deus,” etc. )
The one leading idea, then, in EL, ELOAH, and
ELOHIM, is, power with EXCELLENCE ; and worRsHI,
as attendant on that power.
* Comp. ‘ Συδέκ᾽ and “ Συδίκ, ὁ. 4.) PTY “ justus,”
the father of the seven “ Cabiri,’ according to the
Pheenicians, in Euseb. Praep. Ev. lib. ii. 10, p. 39, c.
Pee De ae eee ae οδα
70
28
We now come to consider the literal sense of—
IV.—@EO>. Hermes said of Θεός: ‘ Θεὸν νοῆσαι
μὲν χαλεπὸν, φράσαι δὲ ἀδύνατον “‘ Roges me,” says
Cicero (de Nat. D. i. 60) quid aut quale sit deus;
auctore utor Simonide—qui, “quanto, inquit, diu-
tius considero, tanto mihi res videtur obscurior.”—
‘“‘Concedo esse deos, doce me, ἐεῖνητ, unde sint, ubi
sint, quales sint corpore, animo, vita,” etc.
That incertitude as regards the nature of θεός is
nowhere more plainly set forth than in the variety of
etymologies for θεός, offered by the Greeks themselves.
Herodotus (Eut. ii. 52) says, that the Pelasgians
θεοὺς δὲ προσωνόμασάν σῴεας ἀπὸ Tod τοιούτου ὅτι κόσμῳ
θέντες τὰ πάντα πρήγματα καὶ πάσας νομὰς εἶχον" “ called
them ‘ gods’ (θεούς) from this circumstance, that they,
after having put (θέντες) all things in order, took in
hand the whole management of them.” Now, “τὸ.
ποιῆσαι, (says Athen. 1. xi. p. 503,) θεῖναι πρὸς τῶν
ἀρχαίων ἐλέγετο." ‘‘ Hoc pacto (adds Scap. p. 919) θεός
erit conditor et creator universi.”—Phurnutus (de
Nat. D. i. p. 140, ed. Gale) agrees with both: ἔυλογον
δὲ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς θέσεως ἐσχηκέναι τὴν προσηγορίαν----
ταῦτα δ᾽ ἄν εἶεν οἱ θεοὶ, θετῆρες καὶ ποιηταὶ τῶν γινομένων
ὅλων --- The gods are ‘arrangers’ and makers of all
that exists.”.—And further, he adds, that of old,
men took to be θεούς, “ gods,” ods εὗρον ἀδιαπτώτως
eee ee!
Ἵ
ΨΈΝ ἢ “the bodies they saw continually revolv-
ing,” etc.
This ἐρέω is is borrowed from Plato (Cratyl. sec.
31, ed. Bek., and Euseb. Praep. Ev. i. p. 29, ¢, seq.),
who says, that the Greeks at first worshipped the
sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, and heaven,
“ ἅτε οὖν αὐτὰ ὁρῶντες πάντα ἀεὶ ἰόντα δρόμου καὶ θέοντα,
> , 7 - ΄ a a a \ > ‘ >
ἀπό ταύτης THs φύσεως τῆς Tod θεῖν θεοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐπονο-
paca.” “ As they saw those bodies continually re-
volving in their course, (‘éfe@eiacav, θεοὺς ἐκ τοῦ
θεῖν ὀνομάσαντες τοὺς ἀστέρας᾽ Clem. Alex. Adm.
Gent. p. 15, ed. Col.), they called them θεούς (gods),
from the rapid motion (τὸ θέειν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι τρέχειν,
καὶ ὀξέως κινεῖσθαι, Simplicius, com. in Epict. Enchir.
p- 223, ed. Salmas.) inherent in their nature.” (Sick-
ler, Cad. p. 4, derives θέω from NYN, “to wander”).
To all of which, Macrobius (Sat. i. ὁ. xxiii. p. 319,
ed. τ ) assents, when he remarks (on this line in the
Iliad ἀ 424 :--θεοὶ δ᾽ ἅμα πάντες érovto);— θεούς enim
dicunt sidera et stellas ἀπὸ τοῦ θέειν, id est, τρέχειν,
quod semper in cursu sint.”—Or, θεός may come ἀπὸ
τοῦ GewpeicOar.—(Stob. Eclog. Phys. p. 4.) “ὁ μὲν θεὸς
αὐτὸς οὔτε ὁρατὸς οὔτε αἰσθητὸς, ἀλλὰ λόγῳ, Kal νόῳ
θεορατός.᾽ “God, verily, is neither to be seen nor
heard ; but only to be contemplated through the rea-
son and the mind.”—Or, from θηέομαι, admiror. Scap.
p- 253.—Or, from θάω, 1.9., θάομαι, “ specto cum
cura”; 6. 4. θασόμεναι τὸν "άδωνιν (Theocr. Id. xv. 23 ;
Damm. Lex. Hom. v. θάω), and,—‘‘comparatio vocis
Latine ‘deus,’ cum Graco δέος timor, pro quo δέος
72
(cum adspiratione lit. δ) dicere potuerunt @éos—sua-
det, ut credamus Θεὸν Grecis dictum fuisse ἃ timore ©
et metu, quem tonitrua et fulmina, ex ethere missa,
mortalibus incutiant. Eadem forte ratio est vocis
pds Elohim apud Hebreos,” says J. V. Ὅν be
Scap. Lex. p. 919).
Lastly, Bryant (Anc. Myth. i. 13) derives θεός from
the Egyptian Hermes, ‘‘Taut, Thoth, or Theuth”; and
thinks it was originally written @ei6 !—‘“ Videtisne,”
says Cicero-(de Nat. D. ii. 70), “ut a physicis rebus,
bene atque utiliter inventis tracta ratio sit ad com-
mentitios et fictos deos? quod res genuit falsas opi-
niones.””
’ὔ
“Ti τοίνυν, ὦ τὰν, ἀποκρινοίμεθα ὅ, τι ἐστὶ ‘ Θεός" - ἢ
> ? ᾽ ?
For ΘΕΟΣ neither comes from θέσις, nor from θέω,
nor yet from θεάομαι, nor from anything essentially
Greek. Its origin, like one element of the Greek lan-
guage, is from the East; and θεός is derived, probably
through Diu-s, Déus, from the Sanscrit root Drv,
Div, implying, 1.)—brilliancy; and 2)—the Sky or
Heaven.
DIU is a substantive, masculine, feminine, and neu-
ter, which occurs in the Vedas. As mas. (nom. sing.)
DIU-S, it means “Agni,” “fire,” the “Sun”; as jem.
it implies “a ray οἵ light,” “day” (Lat. diu); as
neut. it stands for ‘‘the Sky,” or “ Heaven,” ἀιθήρ.
DIV is also frequently found in the Vedas; 1) as
* Max. Tyrius Serm. i. p. 2, ed. H. Steph.
73
an adjective, “brilliant” and 2) as a fem. substantive,
for the “ Sxy,” or ‘‘ Heaven.” It is itself a defective.
noun, and, in later Sanscrit, it borrows some of its
cases from the kindred words (Dyo, Dyau), DIAU-S,
fem. and mas., “‘ the Sky,” “Heaven” ; and Dyu, (diuti),
Div, neut., ““ the Sky,” or “ expanse of Heaven,” etc.
Thus, DIV adopts for its nominative sing., DIAUS;
as in the Rig.-Veda (Asht. 1, Adh. 2, varg. vi. 13),
“ Mahi DIAUS prit’hivi-cha”; “ great Heaven and the
Earth.” In theacc. sing. it makes regularly, DIVAM;
nom. and acc. pl., DIVAS; gen. sing., DIVAS, and
gen. pl., DIVAM; dat. and abl. pl., DIU-B’HYAS,
(from Div,) etc.; and DIV means —
1) “ the Sky,” “Heaven.” Sama-Veda (Artch. i.
prap. 4, Ard’h. 2, dag. i. 7).
Endra jahi harib’hirupa Kanwasya sushtutim, |
DIVO amushya shashato DIVAM jaya DIVA vaso. | |
ἐς Come, O Indra! with thy golden-coloured steeds,
and listen to the fond praise of Kanwa! Mount, O
thou Gem of Day (“ treasure by day,” Diva), into the
Sky (Divam), into the vault of Heaven (Divas), that
overrules us all!” -
And (ibid. pr. i. dag. ii. 10) “ paro jadid’hyate DIVI,”
the Sun “ who shines forth in the Sky” (Divi); and
(dag. iii. 7) “Agnirmurd’ha DIVAS kakut” (ὀφθαλμός---
ἀελίου ? in Ol. iii. 36), “O Chief Agni! bright globe
of Heaven” (DIVAS); “ὦ ᾽ναξ "Ἄπολλον! (CEd. R. 80)
ὦ τὸν αἰπὺν οὐρανὸν διφρηλατῶν “Hue” (Aj. 845). And
Rig.-Veda (Asht. 1, Adh. 2, varg. vii. 20), “ DIVIVA
74
chak’shuratatam,” ‘“ like a glance of the eye into the
bright expanse of Heaven” (Divi), ete. DIV means—
2) “Heaven” personified, as father of Ushas, or
Aurora—(Sama-V. Arch. 1, prap. 4, dag. ii. 1),—
pratyu adarshyayatyu = ch’hanti duhita DIVA: “ Yon-
der dawns in her beauty, the beaming daughter οὗ
Heaven” (Divas),—’'Has ὅτε Sia φανήῃ (Il. w. 417, ete.)
᾿Ηὼς λαμπροφαής---θεὰ θνητῦις φαεσίμβροτον ἦμαρ ἄγουσα."
(Orph. H. 71.) She is called (in Sama-V. Arch. 1,
prap. 2. dag. iv. 4) “priya Divas,” “the beloved of |
Heaven”; and, (ibid., Arch. 2, prap. 8, Ardh. 3, xi. 3)
Sa no adyab’haradvasur vyuch’ha duhitar DIVA: “ The
daughter of Heaven, at dawn, has brought to-day’s
weal with her.” This intimate relationship between
Div and Div, is further shown by such passages as
(ὁ. g., Rig.-Veda, Asht. 1, Adh. 1, varg. xii, 9) “ ata:
parijmannagahi DIVO va rochanad ad’hi”: ‘therefore, O
ye surrounding (Maruts), come hither ; whether from
the Sky (divo) or from the brilliant solar Heaven.”
“Divo” is here explained in the commentary by
“ Div-lokat,” ‘ from the world of DIU,” the highest
region of the atmosphere ; and “rochanat,” by “ dip-
yamanad Aditya-mandalat,” “ from the brilliant sphere
of the Sun” (see also varg. xxvii. 9, etc.).
That brilliant sphere was (the feminine) “ mahi,”
or “uttara” DIAUS,—“ ἡ ἐσχάτη περιφέρεια ἐν § πᾶν
ἵδρυται τό θεῖον" (Zeno, Diog. Laert. vii. 1, 70),—
ὁ ἀνώτατος réros— orbis ceelestis extimus”—(Somn.
Scip. 4)— ὅν αἰθέρα προσωνόμασαν, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεῖν ἀεὶ. τὸ
ar
τὰς
Ἂ
om
ae
ἦν:
πὰ
ΤΩΝ
δι
᾿
oF RRR re
sf) Wee τῷ τ Sea
ἀΐδιον χρόνον θέμενοι τήν ἐπωνυμίαν aitd—eis καὶ
ἀέδεος---ἔχων δὲ καὶ περιέχων ἐν ἁυτῷ τὸν ἄπειρον χρό-
vov.* It is also taken for “" Heaven” :—’Eva μὲν οὖν
τρόπον Οὐρανὸν λέγομεν τήν οὐσίαν τὴν τῆς ἐσχάτης τοῦ
παντὸς περιφορᾶς --- εἰώθαμεν γὰρ τὸ ἔσχατον καὶ τὸ ἄνω
μάλιστα καλεῖν Οὐρανόν, (“ celum, eternum, immen-
sum, neque genitum, neque interiturum unquam”
Plin. N. H. lib. ii. 1, seg.), ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸ θεῖον πᾶν
᾿ ἱδρῦσθαί φαμεν. (Arist. de Celo, i. 3, 13; ii. 1; i. 9,
8.) It was supposed (as e. g., by Anaxagoras) to be
of fire, in which the planets, gods (θεοί), revolved.
“Opowos δὲ τῷ ἀρίστῳ (θεῷ) otpavds—Oeodrs μὲν οὖν (ἔλεγεν)
ἔχειν τὸ πολὺ πυρίνους, aS Plato says (in Diog. Laert.
iii. 72, 74, ed. H.); and Pythagoras, “Td μὲν οὖν ἀνω-
τάτω μέρος TOD περιέχοντος,---Ολυμπον καλεῖ---Ὁὁ Διὸς
φυλακὴν ὀνομάζουσι, τὸ τἄάυτην ἔχον τὴν χώραν πῦρ.
(Stob. Ecl. Phys. 1. p. 488; Arist. de Ceelo, i. 13; in
Preller’s H. Ph. p. 78, etc.).
* Comp. the Zendic “ Zaruana-akarana,” the “ un-
created,” “ eternal time,” which on that account has
no “ Fravashi,” or “ Farohar,” or first ideal prototype,
or cause (fra-ushi, “life, intelligence”). (Vendid. 19,
480, etc.; Burnouf. com. on the Yagna, pp. 269-71 ;
Vendid. Brockh. 361; Wilson, P. R. p. 131, seq. etc.).
Comp. also “" Χρόνος," “‘ Time,” who, says Damascius
(c. 125), was a god of the Sidonians; worshipped in
Gaza as ᾿Αλδήμιος or “AdSos, which Bochart (G. sac. ii.
2,14) explains by pon bys. from abn “ the course
of time,” etc.
76
“Uttara” DIAUS (“Swarga, Suralokau, DIO, divau”
Amarak. i. 1), answers, perhaps, in a certain sense, to
“nasr” and to “carn,” among the Egyptians (Lep-
sius Ag. gitterkr. p. 8, seq.) ;—to “ Zian” or “ Dgah-
Itan” of the Buddhists (Upham Hist. B. p. 74, seg.,
and Rgya-tcher. RP. passim.) It is also the “ Hwang-
T’heen” and “Ta-T’heen” of China; and it may like-
wise represent the “ Gimle” of northern mythology;
the “ upper-world of light” (Finn Magnus. Eddaleren,
tred. B. p. 217).- It is doubtless meant as, that —
“Land er heilagt*
Er ec liggia se
Asom ok Alfom ner.”
“ Athereal land
Which I see lying
Near the gods and the elves.”
—(Grimnis-mal. iv.)
It was,—
“‘ Tonea convexi vis et sine pondere cceli,”
(— Ceeli lucida templa,” Lucret. i. 1013); quod
“ Astra tenent celeste solum, formeeque deorum.”
—(Ov. M. i. 26, 72).
2
* “ Feilagt,” means “ethereal”; or, as F. Magn.
(ibid. p. 11) says: “hvad der tilhérer den hae,
klare Himmel”: “ what belongs to the high, clear
Heaven” (see Sdlar-Lioth, 23). Hence “ heilig,”
“holy.” A good land to look forward to! —
a ferns
oN REM gS foe ee
PS oe
17
“Uttara” DIAUS, was the You) ἢ “bright (air
or) sphere” of the Sabzans, in which the self-existent
phenix lived, ¢.g., Lib. Adami, 1. i. p. 144. —80
123 bye waa eotas Leis (OOL3? $0200
Pato Joo 15" πω ayo 165 bie Joo up jon
1:91» 123 Yoon Jato 60 Ἰ.. ἢ» 1.2 Yoon 123
—00 ἸΔ» js} Loot jor 2] Sco Joo 155 Joy pl}
. Boous lato» fiso joo toons An [Ae] “ Even
before all the worlds were made, ‘ Ferho,’ the (great)
divine phenix* already existed. As the divine
* A symbol of the Deity. Compare the “ hawk”
and the er “hat” in Egypt, etc., and “ Patanga,”
“ bird,” an epithet of the Sun (in S.-V. ii. 6. 1, 11, 3),
with pile jlals, the “royal falcon” darting from
the Creator’s hand (Djel. D. p. 130). In the Ber.
Rabba, c. xix., it is said that ‘all animals hearkened
to Eve’s voice, and ate of the forbidden fruit— yn
‘oy mae Sins vnn Sin we ons AyD — except
one bird, by name ‘ Chul’ (Phenix), of which it is
said, ‘I will multiply my days like (those of) Chul.’ ”
“ This bird,” says R. Jannai (ibid.), ‘A NIN MY BON
*‘ lives a thousand years, then burns his nest, and lives
again and evermore,” etc. Norberg renders Lu;
(volatilis) by ‘‘ Pheenix,” and he compares it (Lexid.
p- 125) with the Persian “ Ferouer” (com. Yagna,
p. 271), which he derives from .,4,, “to fly.” He
must have meant .;,, ‘‘ Pari,” the probable origin of
“Fairy”; which in the wil οὐ» IS 90 (an, Op-
posed to “ Div,” an evil genius.
78
Ferho existed, in him also did the divine king of
glorious light appear. And from the divine king
of glorious light, the (“‘ Oyar zivo”—bright atmo-
sphere) realms of light were produced ; and out of
that “‘oyar zivo,” came the “fire of life”; and out of
the fire of life, came forth the powerful light of the
“ king of light.”
DIAUS was also the AGAN or “ Heaven” —staraih .
maonho . Huro. anaghranam . raochananham . qadhatanam
— of the stars, of the moon, and of the sun; self-
existing lights that have no beginning,” mentioned
in the Zend-avesta (Yagna, Com. c. xxxvii. p. 343,
seq.); and it ranged high above (the lower and. neuter)
DIU which was inhabited, as we have seen, by the
Maruts (winds or genii), “ prishnimatara:,” “ born of ©
the earth” (Rig.-V. Asht. 1, Adh. 2. varg. ix. 10;
Adh. 3, varg. xv. 4, etc.).
There, in “the higher Heaven” (Swarga, Suraloka),
in the “mahi,” or “uttara” DIAUS, “κόσμου δύνα-
pts,” the procreating or generative ῬΟΎΤΕΕ, -- Ἥλιος
παντοκράτωρ, Agni, DIU-S,—dwelt in splendour, sur-
rounded by his revolving satellites (θεοί). He was
adored as nta2, pH, AUOYN-pH or dpH,* not in the
Lybian-desert alone, but in the neighbourhood of
* Compare qa-pn, 6 τοῦ pH (ὁ τοῦ Διός.--δῖος, rather
than. norpo “the king”) as origin of “ Pharaoh” (in
Burmese, P’harah, “ God,” “ Lord”) with “ Poti-
pherah” (ne-re Φρη “belonging to @pu”), who was
79
Memphis, and by countless multitudes in his own
gorgeous temple at Thebes (rane Sah.), the capital
of his kingdom (kaz-nrAe—Kérros—’Av-yurros), the
“land of Egypt.” He was bys, Ba’al, “lord” or
“master” in Canaan :—(“O Ba’al, hear us!” 1 Kings
XVili. 26—® δέσποτα κόσμου, κλῦθι λόγων, Orph. H.
vii.). He was, and is, even now, in China, “ Choo-jih
yay,” “ the Lord, the Sun,” in the worship of Heaven
(Le-ke c. x. and xyiii.). And in Ceylon, he is still
adored as “ Hi-Ru,” or “I-Ru” (comp. ba-px, Hari)
one of the “ Bali,” (or “ Baalim” ?—planets, θεοί, Uph.
Buddh. p. 112, seg.; Mahawanso, pp. 230, 231, ed.
Turn.). He was WH “ Thammuz,” or Thamuz, dur-
ing the winter solstice, not at Byblus only, but even
at the gate of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ezek. viii.
14); and fHI7T75, +“ Hadad-Rimmon,” at Damascus
(according to Hitzig. Com. in Jes. 17, 8).—In Phe-
nicia he was (Sanchon. ed. Orell. p. 34) “A8wéos (“‘ the
sm smonly one” ?) βασιλεὺς θεῶν (Macrob. Sat. i. 23—
“ Solem intelligentes”) or ‘378 “ Adoni,” “ my lord” !
—He was adored as Κίῤῥις (comp. the Persian ,,~ )
priest of “On” (orwem or orwimn, “the light”),
Ἡλιούπολις, etc. (Gen. xli. 45). And also the ancient
Egyptian ATeR “ gods” (Insc. Roset. 1. vii. viii. ed.
Uhlem.), with the zend ATAR, “ fire,” called in
Yacna, i. Xxxi., “ Ahurao . Mazdao . puthro,” “son of
Hormuzd”; and elsewhere, “ Aokhto. namano . Yazato,”
called by name, “ Yazata” (or Ized).
80
or “Ades at Golgos and Amathus; as ᾿Ηέλιος in his”
own island, the gem of the deep, φανερὰ ‘Podos (Pind.
Ol. vii.); as 90,0 “ Kadusch,” or No} “In”; in
his magnificent halls at Baalbek, in Syria, which,
Abul-feda (Tab. Syr. p. 103, ed. Koehl.) says,— —
ἴων prc ae ead la oe ew Sl auld! Jy
“ The Sabeans* declare to be the finest temple they
have, and in great honour among them.” He was
worshipped as HURVE or MITHRA among the fertile
hills of Ariyana-vaéja; and on the sunny plains of
India, as AGNI, SURYA, DIVAS-PATI, DIU-S.
* vi Diom eshi rajas Prit’hu aha mimano aktub’hi:|
pashyan janmani Surya! ||
Sapta twa harito rat’he vahanti deva Surya|
Shochiskesham Vichak’shana!| |
Udvayam tamasaspari jyotishpashyanta uttaram |
Devan Devatra Suryam aganma jyotiruttamam. ||”
“© Prit’hu! thou traversest, one and alone (i-
eshi), thine «ethereal sphere DIAUS; measuring days
and nights; thou, O Surya! who seest all creatures
upon earth !—
“Thy seven horses draw thee in thy chariot, O
divine, bright-haired, light-imparting Surya!
* ML cyl. ope ealicll,—lgisl yall (Coran. Sur.
li. 62), an. id. 9, “ὦ ( F \ Μ : , 4
"Ovpavod θέαν ἀπατούμενοι καὶ ὄψει μόνῃ πεπιστευκότες,
τῶν ἀστέρων τὰς κινήσεις ἐπιθεώμενοι, ἐθαύμασάν τε ἐξε-
θείασαν, θεοὺς ἐκ τοῦ θεῖν ὀνομάσαντες τοὺς ἀστέρας" καὶ
προσεκύνησαν “Ἥλιον ὡς ᾿Ινδοὶ, καὶ Σ᾽ ἐλήνην, ὡς Φρύγες"
«tr. And thus, being “alienated from the life of
God,” and dandynxéres—“ usvenans yaurthanai,” as
Ulphilas reads it,—that is, “‘ having reached a state
of despair,” “they have given themselves over unto
all uncleanness.” For truly, as Seberianus says (Ho-
mil, x. on Baptism), ἢ κ΄ siupiiny Ghutip ΕἾ, wn_uteg
hsny, ἔκ ἧς Sager Sulghun unushy Xutugkyny
qupuphg fps fuuts gb dias & Snqeny npp qiak
as Xuwiinus£% + “ There is neither life for the body
without breath, nor rest for the soul (or spirit) with-
out the knowledge of her Creator. For the soul of
those men is dead, who know not God.” So that in
Plato’s words—eis “Ἤλιον ἀποβλέποντες, νύκτα ἐν μεσεμ-
βρίᾳ ἐπάγονται, “while looking at the mid-day sun,
those people are still in the shadow of death.”
How full of pity ought we to be for them! and how
thankful ought we to be to Him, “whom to know is
eternal life,” that ‘‘He hath called us out of such dark-
ness into His marvellous light!” That He hath be-
gotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection
of Jesus Curist from the dead,—to an inheritance in-
corruptible, and undefiled; and that fadeth not away,
reserved—higher than either Div or Olympus—in
Heaven for us, “who are kept by the power of Gon,
through faith unto salvation”! Even now, “ though
we see Him not, yet believing,’ our walk through
life is to be that of children of “Gop, who is light”;
the bright “ path of the just,” which is, we know, to
“shine more and more, unto our perfect day.” Then
“we shall see Him as He is; and we shall be satis-
fied, when we awake with His likeness.” For He is
“the Fountain of Life,” and “in His light alone we
shall see light.” Such is our hope. We can, there-
fore, and with more confidence than Anaxagoras
(Diog. 1. ii. 3, ii. ed. Hueb.), also look up to Heaven,
where “ Christ, who is our life,” sitteth on the right
hand of God; and, with him, say: “ἐμοὶ καὶ σφόδρα
μέλει τῆς πατρίδος," δειξὰς τὸν ᾿Ουρανόν."
‘ The twin-roots, DIV, DIU, DIAU-8S, and DIU-8,
which imply ‘‘ Heaven and brilliancy,” while spreading
westward, still continued unaltered in quantity and
in accent. For DIV, DIAU-S, or DIU-S are not words
in which “ vowels go for nothing, and consonants for
very little” ;—but they are terms which, like “ pater,”
‘“‘mater,” “‘frater,” and the like, outlive generations
and languages, unhurt. We find, therefore, that, as
both DIV and DIU-8 “ corripiebant penultimam,”
three thousand years ago, this has remained as short
as it was at that time; and that, of course, the tone
has continued, as in those days, on the last syllable
(except ace. 5. Divam—A/a). DIU-S in Sanserit was
pronounced “DyUS”; and—ere Sanscrit grammar
was modelled by Brahmanical skill—it was, perhaps,
declined something like the Oscan (Iovs or Avs) gen.
“ Tuveis” (diu-vas); dat. “ Diuvei,” διουζει, “ Diovi”
(diu-vi) voc. Ιου, Ιου Πατεῤὶ (diu, diu-piter) in the
Iguvinian Tables, ii. 2, v. 4, iv. 29, etc. (Mommsen,
Unterit. Dial. pp. 129, 148, 170, ete. Grotefend,
Rud. L. Umbr. viii. 17, vii. 30, iv. 7, 12, i. 10, ete..
Lanzi, Saggio di L. Etr. p. 309, etc.)—From DIU-S.
came probably the Latin DEUS; the Dorie ΣΔΕΥ͂Σ
(Aleei fr. 3, ed. G.) and Zeés ; the Lacedzemonian
Σιός (Thucydid. v. 77, περὶ δέ τῶ Σιῶ ovparos—and.
σεῖος ἀνήρ, etc. Arist. Eth. vii. 2); the Holic 4ETS,
ΖΕΥΣ (gen. Adds, dat. Au, acc. Δία) or Θιός (Salmas.
Not. in Epict. p. 37; Scheid. in v. Len. et. Gr. p.
917); the Attic (like οὐθεῖς, οὐθὲν for οὐδ εἷς, οὐδ ἕν,
δυθμὰς for δυσμὰς, etc.) ΘΕΥΣ (Callim. Cal. Cer. 58—
γείνατο δ᾽ ἃ θεῦς, and 129—rorl τὰν θεῦν---) and ΘΕΟΣ.
We find accordingly that, both DEUS and ΘΕΟΣ
are in some cases considered as one syllable, like
ΖΕΥΣ and Div-s. L. g., Θεῦς as above, Θεός, Or. 393;
Θεοί, Il. i. 18, Θεῶν, Θεοῖς, Theogn. 173, and Θεούς,
1100, ete.—and, in Horace (Sat. ii. 3, 284), “ Diis
etenim facile est,” etc. And as to the pronunciation,
no one can hear the dentals t, t’h, d, and d’h, in San-
scrit, from the lips of an educated Brahman, without
feeling that “Diu-s,” “ Ζεύς, “ Deus,” ‘ Θεῦς, and
“‘ Θεός, may be so easily interchanged, as to become
mere proyincialisms of the same identical word. And
not only does the pronunciation of the dentals t, t’h, d,
or d’h, vary, or even dwindle into a sibilant, in Indo-
90
germanic languages, (as e.g., ‘‘dann” for “then,”
“door” and “ durch,” “through,” ete.,) but we find
it the case also among the sterner idioms of the
Shemites. .g., the Arabic JU! “ emthal,” becomes
pa. ἐς meseller,” in Turkish ; oll “ eththani,” in
Yemen, becomes “ ettani” in Syria, and “essani” in
other districts. For these dentals are, from East
to West, another ‘ Sibboleth,” which many do not
pass. πρὶ
The Sanscrit DIU-S (mase.), Agni, or, “the Sun,”
and ( fem.) “radiating light,” in connection with
the allied roots, DIU, DIAU-8, and DIv, “ Sky,” or
( Heaven,” is, then, the probable etymon of DEUS =
ΘΕΟΣ. The Sun was adored because he gave light
to Heaven, and life to the Earth; and Heaven was in
turn worshipped as abode of the Sun. But the object
of adoration. in both was “ Ligut,” as inseparable
from the heat of “ Lirr” (Yacna, i. xxxvii.). This
induced Bryant to propose Ὁ δ ’Ouvp-aw, “ fountain
of light and heat,” as the origin of ’Ovpavdés. For
Heaven as “ Heaven” was not worshipped at night:
the moon and the stars were at that time the sole
objects of adoration; and “ Night” (“— quod nocet,
nox.” Τὶ Varro. vi. 6, ed. Miill.), when deified, was
rather propitiated than worshipped,—“ veneranda
nox,”—as being the absence of the “light and life” of
day, from the “bright” expanse of Heaven above.
Hence, it often happens that, among heathen nations,
“the Sun” and ‘ Heaven”—“ hoc sublime candens,”
—are identified in worship; one DIU-S (m.), as the
Wan ny ees
“se ἐπ
‘
generator of DIU-S (f.), “ light and life,”* the other
DIAU-S (f.), or DIV (f.), as the receiver and pro-
pagator of Licut, throughout the lower and neuter
atmosphere, DIU.
We have here the reason for which Ζεύς = DIU-S
is always in the singular. One Ζεύς, one Drv-s, “ one
HeEAvEN and Sun” ;—dvadéperar δὲ ἡ μονὰς eis ᾿Απόλλωνα,
τουτέστιν, eis Tov ἑνὰ “Hrdsov—és ᾿Απόλλων λέγεται διὰ τὸ
ἄπωθεν εἶναι τῶν πολλῶν καὶ Ῥωμαίοι δὲ αὐτὸν ““ Foren”
(ἤτοι ““ μονον" λέγουσι) Joh. Lydius (de Μ. p. 42)---
“Sox” vel quod ita Sabini, vel “ solus” ita lucet, ut ex
eo deo “dies” sit.f Τὶ Varro (v.68). The Sun, then,
was adored as ?S—‘ πρόμος “Adsos”— ἄναξ κατ᾽ ἐξο-
χήν" (and not ἄναξ from ‘Avaxaios, for having slain the
“? Anakim,” as Dickinson thought ; Delphi Phen. p.
21, seq.) —as N23, ἥρως ;—in the Vedas as “Surya:”—
Shura: and NARA: (comp. “ Nero,” dvdpetos— Νέρων 6
ἱσχύρος τῇ Σαβίνων φωνῇ," J. Lyd. p. 207, n.)—as “ dux
et princeps et moderator luminum reliquorum” (Somn.
Scip. 4)—idam shreshtam jyotisham Rig.-V. Asht. i.
* Comp. “ Jubar”=*“ Lucifer,” with Sansc. diu or
ju-b’hara, bara, or vara?
7 Called, for that reason, in Sanscrit, “ divakara:,”
“maker of the day.” “Αμέρα---παῖς “Αλίου, ---ὁ γενέθλιος
ἀκτίνων πατήρ, Pind.—“ Sollum Osce totum et solidum
significat”;—or, “ usil,” “sol” (αὐσήλ, aurora) often
found on Etruscan mirrors, with an image of the Sun
(Mommsen Unt. Dial. pp. 297, 349).
ee ee eee ee Se ee et a ie Leta ΡΥ i)
ie eel μὰ Oe < »- hg
92
Adh. B. varg. i., “The first and best” (5s) of lumi-
naries ;—as ‘ mens mundi” and “ cor celi” (Somn.
Se. 3). “ Atma jagatastast’hushash-cha.” ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσ-
μου καὶ τοῦ στερεώματος. Rig.-V. Asht.i. Adh. 8, varg.
7,i. nam, “ Sol est in AXthere quod in animali cor”
(Macrob. Somn. Scip. c. xx.); and thus as. the
“ centre,” the “ Light and the Life” of the Universe,
as “ God”—Onr Gop—* Jia μὲν τὸν “Ἥλιον ἐνόμιζον
εἐἶναι".--“ Ἥλιος γὰρ Ζεὺς κατὰ τὸν Φερεκύδην."---(ὅ. Lyd.
pp- 48, 150.)
Even §. Ephrem spiritualises this “ Unity” in
e “Sun,” when he says (Serm. adv. Scr. lxxiii.)— _
= {Zasoston «1:90 Jas? Jolo tetas? {Ilo jo
«στο bbl Yoshsd2 .001 ps Οσὶ 0 +. }s2007
ΟΟἹ .a2;2—. pw JAXZo «οσι ἸΔὰΖ» po» 001 ἴω τν
+2080 —amjo . . σιῶν) So Jetas “ Behold the
symbols in the Sun of the Fatuer; of the Sov, in the
light, and of the Hory Guosr in the heat thereof!
Although He is One, yet He shows forth the Trinity.
—QOne is many; One is three ; and Three One.—The
Sun is parted from his rays; they are distinct and
yet equal and the same,” etc. That was the mono-
theism, from which arose all the gods of heathendom;
for, ‘“‘ quod omnes peene deos dumtaxat qui sub celo
sunt, ad Solem referunt non vana superstitio; sed
ratio divina commendat;—ita diverse virtutis Solis
nomina Diis dederunt: unde & τὸ πᾶν sapientum
principes prodiderunt.”—( Macrob. Sat. i. ο. 17.)
The Sun, then, and Heaven (Agni and Indra),
were the first objects towards which the heathens
raised their eyes, and lifted up their hands in worship.
Aristotle (de CGeelo, ii. 1, 3) tells us that, τὸν δ᾽ οὐρανὸν
καὶ τὸν ἄνω τόπον οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπένειμαν ὡς
ὄντα μόνον ἀθάνατον. “The ancients awarded to the
gods, Heaven and the High place above; as itself
being alone immortal,” etc.; and ibid. i. 3, πάντες
yap ἄνθρωποι περὶ θεῶν ἔχουσιν ὑπόληψιν, Kal πάντες
τὸν ἀνωτάτω τῷ θεῷ τόπον ἀποδιδόασι, καὶ βάρβαροι, καὶ
Ἕλληνες, ὅσοι περ εἶναι νομίζουσι, θεούς, x.7.r. “ All men
have some kind of notion about gods; and they all
have awarded to the Deity the highest place above;
whether Barbarians or Greeks, as many as believe in
the existence of gods.”
But the worship of “ Heaven?” as abode of the
Deity, is especially remarkable in China, as we shall
see presently. That worship was, as we read in the
Le-ke (c. ix.) “ K’hing-chih-che yay,” “ an act of the
highest possible veneration.” We find it the case
throughout, in the Shoo-king, in the Le-ke, and in
the other works of Confucius. For as to the “ mate-
rial” Heaven, the Chinese only thought “ T’heen-Tih
shang-keaou,” ‘ that Heaven and the Earth were of a
very remote antiquity.” For, here, “keaou” cannot
be “eternal,” as one commentator explains it; for
Lao-Tsze says expressly (see above, p. 19), that
“wo-ming Taou,” ‘ the ineffable Taou,” “the Taou
that cannot be named,” is the origin of Heaven and
Earth. And at c. xxiii., moreover, he seems to imply
that T’heen-Tih puh neng keaou—“ Heaven and Earth
cannot last long.”
94
Whether in China, then, in Greece, or in India, —
“bright Heaven,” DIV or DIAU-S, was deified and
worshipped—
1) as abode of the Sun, Le-ke (c. ix. x. xii. xviil.
xix.) ‘‘Keaou-che tse ta paou T’heen eul choo Jih,”
“ The sacrifice performed in the open country, is a
preat acknowledgment to Heaven, and the principal
object in it is the Sun”: στρέφοντα κύκλον ᾿Ηλίου πᾶς
προσκυνξι (Soph. fr. 90, 2) τόν πανόπτην κύκλον Ἡλίου
καλῶ, (Prom. v. 91,) ete. :
2) as abode of the planets (θεοί, ἀπὸ τοῦ θέειν, Plato
Cratyl.),— μακάρεσσι θεοῖς ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ, (Hes.
Theog. 128,)—and soon became— 3
3) personified ; (as Hes. Th. 46, and Orph. H. iv.,)
“ Οὐρανὲ παγγενέτωρ, κόσμου μέρος αἰὲν ἀτειρὲς, πρεσβυγέ-
ven’ ἀρχὴ πάντων" .--- πανυπέρτατε δαίμον, κλῦθί pev,”—
and in the Vedas, as father of Ushas or Aurora, ete.
We saw above, that Φανής, Φαεθών, “Ἥλιος, and Ζεύς,
Deus, are one (Ζεύς, Ἥλιος ἠδέ Σελήνη, Orph. fr. vi.).
And since ‘‘ Heaven” (DIU or DIAU-S, Διός ὑψιμέλαθρον
ἔχων κράτος, Orph. H. v.), ὁ. ¢., “the light of Heaven
above,” was, practically, identified in worship, with
DIU-S the Sun and father of that light, we must
expect to find also that ’Ovpavds and Ζεύς are one
and the same. ‘ Mundum,” says Pliny (Nat. H.
lib. ii. 1), “ οὐ hoc, quod nomine alio ‘ Celum’ ap-
pellare libuit, cujus circumflexu teguntur cuncta,
numen esse credi par est, eternum, immensum, ne-
que genitum, neque interiturum unquam.” We find,
95
accordingly, that Euripides, as quoted by Hecateus
(Huseb. Prep. Ev. p. 681, A. ed. Col.) says—
‘ Opds, φησὶ, τὸν ὑψοῦ, τόνδ᾽ ἄπειρον ᾿Αιθέρα,
Καὶ γῆν πέριξ ἔχονθ᾽ ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις ;
Τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ᾽ ἥγου Θ εόν.
And Aischylus (ibid. ibid.)—
Ζεύς ἐστιν αἰθήρ, Ζεὺς δὲ γῆ, Ζεὺς δ᾽ οὐρανός.
And Orpheus (fr. νἱ.}--
Ζεὺς πυθμὴν γαίης τε καὶ ᾿Ουρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, etc.
εἷς θεός ἐν πάντεσσι, τί σοι δίχα ταῦτ᾽ ἀγορεύω ;—(fr. iv. )
And Ennius (Epich. 512,ed.G.)—
ἐς Tstic est is Juppiter, quem dico, quem Greeci vocant
”
"Aépa
And Philemon (fr. i. ed. Cler. )}—
“ --οὗτος εἰμ᾽ ἐγὼ
᾿Αήρ, ὅν ἄν τις ὀνομάσειε καὶ Δία."
And Archilochus (fr. 17, ed. G.)—
Ὦ Zed, πάτερ Zed, σὸν μὲν ᾿Ουρανοῦ kpatos!” etc.
Thus, besides the Greek idea that “6 κόσμος ψυχὴν
ἔχει THY συνέχουσαν αὐτόν. καὶ αὕτη καλεῖται ζεύς --- ὡς
αἰτία οὖσα τοῖς ζῶσι τοῦ ζῆν ---Παρά τισι δὲ καὶ δεὺς
λέγεται ἀπὸ τοῦ δεύειν τὴν γήν"---κιτ᾿λ. (Phurn. N. 1).
p- 141, ed. Gale), we may also mention other appro-
priate (but not probable) etymologies for Ζεὺς; namely,
the Syriac Yas} “Zivo” (7.¢., DIV?), “brightness,
light,” (“‘ Oyar zivo,”) and the Egyptian xoeic (pron.
Djois, or Djeus), which means “ Most-High” ; and with
the article nxoeic, (or, abbreviated, noc, ) the word by
which ΓΤ and Κύριος are generally translated in Holy
Scripture. ΖΕΥ͂Σ, then, ὕψιστος,--“Ἡλιός τε καὶ Odpa-
vos,—is πατήρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε---ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος
ἐσμέν ---“ pater divimque hominumque”; DIESPI-
TER,* (Hor. Od. i. 84, 5) (not DIVAS-PATI: “ Lord
of the Sky,” an epithet of Agni and of Indra; but)
DIU-S-PITER, or DIAU-S-PITER, ‘ Sun,” or * brilli-
ant-Heaven-Father”; or DIU-PITER, “ Air,” “ Sky,”
or “ Heaven-Father”; JUPITER; ZET¥—DEUS =
ΘΕΟΣ;,--
“hoe |
Sublime candens quem vocant omnes JOVEM.”
—(Ennius Thyest. 669, ed. Giles).
In like manner, then, as ΖΕΥΣ, DIU-S, DIV, was
* “Hoc idem ostendit antiquius Jovis nomen ;
nam olim Drovis et Dresriter dictus, id est ‘ dies
pater’ (‘ dies,’ ὦ. g., ‘ dius,’ Lanzi. Sagg. iii. 721), a
quo ‘dei’ dicti qui inde, et ‘dius’ et ‘divos’; unde
‘ sub divo,’ ‘ Dius Fidius.’ Itaque inde ejus perfora-
tum tectum ut ea videatur ‘ divom’ id est ‘ celum’;
-- Δ 105 ‘ Dium Fidium’ dicebat ‘ Diovis filium,’ ut
Greci Διόσκορον Castorem,” etc, (T. Varro. ν. 65, et
ix. 75, ed. Mill.) “ Jovis diespiter appellatus, id est
diei et lucis pater: idcireoque simili nomine Diiovis
(or Diovis) dictus est et Lucretius, quod nos die et |
luce quasi vita ipsa afficeret et juvaret.”—(Gell. v. 10;
in Mommsen. Unt. D. p. 274).
tn - x est, See) 5. 359) Si Mal
ΟΣ gg ee ery
97
πατὴρ θεῶν ᾿Ολυμπίων (Choeph. 773)—so also from
(Diu, Diu-s) DIV proceeds naturally the adjective
DEVA-S, Lat. Divus, 7. ¢., one of DIV “ Heaven”—
both “bright” and “ heavenly.” Accordingly, we
find, δῖος (diu-s) “τὸν ἀπὸ Atds”—vidv ἐμὸν, Σαρπηδόνα
δῖον, Ll. ό. 67, as Plato (Pheedr. sec. 72, ed. Bek.) says:
‘ot μὲν δὴ οὖν Διὸς Δίιόν τινα εἶναι ζητοῦσι τὴν. ψυχὴν τὸν
ὑφ᾽ αὑτῶν épopevov’”— θεῖος a θεός, e.g. Zeno ( Diog. Laert.
vil. 119), ‘ θείους (ἀνθρώπους) τε εἶναι" ἔχειν γὰρ ἐν éav-
τοῖς οἱονεὶ θεόν". --σεῖος ἃ σιός, etc., and thus only,
“ divus” a “ déo,” “a god.”
DEVA-S, we see, can hardly be the root of DEUS
and ΘΕΟΣ, for the wear and tear of three thousand
years would not reduce the long é of Déva-s (pro-
nounced like ay in “day,” “nay”) to the short ὅ, ε,
in Déus, and Θεός. For, this “ epirov” (and not ora)
is the Greek substitute for the Sanscrit semi-vowel —
“y” or “7” short; since (unlike c-wra), it coalesces
with the following vowel into one syllable, as in Ζεύς,
Ζεύς = Dyus, Diu-s; and also in Θεός, as Porson (not.
ad Orest. 393) shows abundantly. Moreover, the “ v”
( Vit) of déva-s would not disappear without good reason
for it. (Comp. e.g. “ dwa,” (diia) dtio, inst. pl. dwab’-
hi-s, Lat. ““ diabus,” with dyu-s, (diu-s) déus, Θεός, acc.
5. (of diau-s) diam, diém; inst. pl. (of dyu) diub’hi-s,
diibus ; gen. pl. (of div) divam, défim, θεῶν.) In the
nom. pl. Déeva-s makes Déva-s, Lat. Divi, οἱ θεοί. acc.
sing. Déevam, Lat. Divum, etc., and it is applied, like
θεοί, to all created gods; who are the offspring of
Diy, Drv-s, “ Pita devanam,” “the Father of the gods.”
8 :
98
We have already quoted the Orphic hymns to that
effect. Inthe Rig.-V.,i., Adh. 2, iv. 18, we read —
“Namo mahadb’hyo namo arb’hakeb’hyo namo juvab’-
hyo namo ashineb’hya: |}
Yajyama devan jadi shaknavama ma jyayasa: shansa-
ma vrik’shi deva:||”
“ Homage to the great gods, homage to the lesser
gods, homage to the younger gods, (at last!) also to
the older ones! We worship the gods as well as we
can; let me not omit to praise the oldest gods as
well.” They are said, in varg. iv. 2, to be, Déva Di-
visprisha—“ divi Dium tangentes” ; explained in the
commentary to mean, as applicable to the two As-
wins, Diulokanivasinau, “ dwelling in the world of
DIU-S.” Déva-s, it is true, is applied to Vrras, who
_ is a secondary creator, and “ calls, or not, this world
into life’ at pleasure (in Laws of Manu, v. 52).
But at sl. 33, we find that this creator VrraJ, although
so powerful, is nevertheless an offspring of
* tapastaptwasrijat yantu sa swayam purusho VIRAT,”
the original Viraj, or Brahma, after he had performed
austerities for that purpose. In the Rig.-V., also,
Asht. i. Adh. 1, varg. 23, 7, etc., and in the Vedas
in general, déva-s is repeatedly said of Aen; but it
stands there as an adjective; and the commentary
explains it to mean, “ dyotamana,” “ brilliant”; and
“divine.” We have also further proof, elsewhere,
that Déva-s “ divus,” “a god,” cannot be taken in the
same acceptation as Déus ὁ Θεός, Gop; 6. 4.. in the
99
Bhagavad-gita, x. 23, Bhagavan, Almum Numen,
says—
_ * Na me vidu: surana: prab’havanna maharshaya: |
Ahamadirhi Devanam maharshinan-cha sarvasha:||”
“ Neither do the hosts of gods, nor yet the oldest
sages, know from whence Iam. I am the origin of
the gods, and of the great sages too!” ete. DEVA-S,
then, like Divi and θεοί, are creatures, “ Θεοῦ παῖδες,
the offspring of DIV, or DIU-S.
But although heaven-born, those Déva-s, divi or
θεοί, Were, we know, bad enough: and, for that rea-
son, they were alternately worshipped or dreaded,
coaxed or averted, by an ignorant and priest-ridden
multitude. In the Zend-Avesta, for instance, “Ἢ Daé-
vas,” ‘“ déva-s,” “ divus,” always means an “ evil
spirit,” hostile to Hormuzd; as, 6. g., “‘ Daevojata,”
“struck or killed by the Daévas”; and (Yagna,
Invoc. iii.) Fravarane . mazdayagno . Zarathustris . vi-
daevo . Ahuratkaeso . etc.: “ I utter with respect the
mazdayacgna of Zarathustr, the enemy of the Daévas,
the follower of Ahura’s behests, etc.” The same word
became, in Persian, yo, “ Div,” with a long 7, which
eG οὐ says, ash cables ἡ .c¥ is “a species
of devils.” While the long @ of déva-s, re-appears in
the diphthong “4,” “év,” or “yév” (comp. Lith.
“ diewas,” and Lett. “ deewas”), of the Armenian g4,
mév,” or “ TyHv,” gen. gfrf, “ τίνι, etc. “an
evil genius or spirit,” which in ancient Armenian
authors is frequently applied to false gods; 6. g.
100
(Moses Chor. lib. i. ο. viil.), Ugéege & tpktyhe,
wnwbiph ἦν phot bw foupSh desu & puplug
wunXupp + ‘Those chiefs among the gods were
both terrible and notorious, and the promoters of
many advantages to the world”; and c. ix., where
the historian relates the deeds of Haic, who by his
valour ruled over ὅσων $puhuybgt afegququrhg,
‘all the giants and the gods.” In the New Testa-
ment, “74” is used for “devil”; 6. g., 1 Cor. x. 20,
“ra ἔθνη, bug A n's iy “πη ΕἾ, : δαιμονίοις θύει, καὶ
οὐ Θεῷ, etc. Thence comes the old Icelandic ΤΙΕῚ
or Tivi, “ἃ god,” pl. Tivar, e.g., “ rikir tivar,”
“‘ powerful gods” (Thrm. qv. i.; Vegt. qv. 43, etc.),
and the modern Icelandic “ dif-il,” a ‘ dev-il”; and
the acceptation of δαίμων (which in Greek is good and
bad), chiefly in a bad sense in Latin, and always so
in its cognate dialects.
“Ἐν τοσούτῳ δὴ πολέμῳ καὶ στάσει καὶ διαφωνίᾳ," Says
Max. Tyrius (λόγ. ά. p. 8) ἕνα ἴδοις ἄν ἐν πάσῃ γῇ
ὁμόφωνον νόμον καὶ λόγον, ὅτε ΘΕΟΣ ΕΙΣ πάντων βασι-
λεὺς καὶ πατὴρ, καὶ θεοὶ πολλοὶ, Θεοῦ παῖδες συνάρχοντες
Θεῷ. Ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἕλλην λέγει καὶ 6 βάρβαρος λέγει."
We find accordingly, that in like manner as Ζεύς
was “efs,” so also was his prototype (Div) or DIU,
‘‘ HEAVEN,” personified, even in Vaidic times, under
the name of Indra,*—
* Kither from “ idi” “to govern”; or from “ indi,”
“ raining.”
101
**___ PATIR-DIVO, ya eka idb’huratit’hirjananam |
Sa purvyo — EKA IT.”
“the Lord of Heaven, who atone is (the guest
worshipped among men. He is of old—He 1s onz.”
(Sama-V. i. 4, 2, 4, 3).
It was Indra, who —
“ —— dirgaya chak’shasa a Suryan rohayad Divi|”
“in order to make all things for ever visible” (Adi-
tyan Diuloke st’hapitavan), raised (or placed) the Sun,
DIU-S, in “ Heaven”; that is “in the world of
DIU”; (“within himself” Rig.-V. i. 1; xiii. 8).
Then, the Sun, DIU-S, the restless Agni —
*Murd’ha DIVO, nabir AGNI: prit’hivya at’hab’havad
arati rodasyo: |”
became the “head” of Heaven (DIU-S masc. of DIU
neut. as “ Head and Author of life”), the navel of the
earth (“ ὀμφαλὸς ἐριβρόμου χθονός, at Delphi, Pind.),
that gives to it strength and energy—* d«dpas”—
ἐς ὑπερίων""-““ κόσμου τὸν ἐναρμόνιον δρόμον ἕλκων" (Orph.
H. νἱῖ]. ; Rig.-V. i. 4; xxv. 2), for —
ΣΙ Suparno antarik’shan yak’hyadgab’hiravepa Asura:
Sunit’ha: |”
“the deep-quivering, life-giving, true Suparna (‘ with
healing wings’—wholesome rays) shines in the whole
Heaven” (Rig.-V. i. 3; vil. 7),—DIVAS-chid rocha-
nad ad@’hi—‘ from even beyond the bright sphere
above,” where he—yevérwp jods”—dwells with his
daughter Ushas (Rig.-V. i. 4; vi. 1).
The Sun, as “ head of Heaven,” and “ prat’hamo 4
102
mritanam”——“‘ first among the immortals” (Rig.-V. 1.
2; xiii. 2), was worshipped FIRST ;—
“hvayamy AGNIM PRAT’HAMAN, swastaye
—hvayami devan Savitaram, utaye | |”
“"Hy1e δέσποτα, καὶ πῦρ iepdv!”
“ αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν οὐ λήξω, ἑκηβόλον ᾿Απόλλωνα
ὑμνέων, ἀργυρότοξον (Hom. H. Ap. 177).
ee
Tov πάντων θεῶν
θεὸν πρόμον “AdXtov”—* ὀλβιοδῶτα᾽"
“ σὸν θεόν ποιούμενος ἀρωγόν"" (Soph. Orph. Rig.-
Was Os Nicks ond ἃ 2 ΩΝ, 8).
For the Sun, Agni, DIU-S “DIVAS-PATI:” or “ Patir-
divas,’ “ Lord of Heaven” or of “the day,” is
“ jyotishkrit,” “ creator of light” (Rig.-V. i. 4; vil.
4); “diva-kara:” “ maker of the day” (or “ of Hea-
ven”—* οὐράνιον φῶς, Orph.; Kum. Samb’h. i. 12),
and —
““ pratyan devanam visha: pratyanudeshi manushan |
pratyan vishwan swardrishe, | |”
“rises in presence of all the gods; in presence of
men; in sight of the whole Heaven” (ibid. 5).
Hence—
“"Evdey ἐπωνυμίαν σε βροτοὶ κλήζουσιν "ANAKTA,”
he is called “ Prince” (Orph. Η. xxxiv.); “ vispatim,”
“Lord of men” (Rig.-V.i. 1; xxii. 2); and “ vishwa-
charshanim,” “ worshipped by all” (Rig.-V. 1. 2;
xxiii. 9), who are all “ his offspring.” For —
“twam AGNE pramatistwam PITASI nastwam vayas-
krittava jamayo vayam | ”
103
* Q Agni! thou art favourable to us. Thou art our
Father! thou givest us life, and we are thy kins-
men !” 7
Thus sang of old, the Vaidic priests of Sind, the
beloved land of Indu, that drinks “ prishtin Divas,”
the refreshing showers of Heaven; and rejoices ever-
more in the exuberant gifts of AGNI, “ Pati prit’hivya,”
“the Lorp,” who “vansate rayim,” “crowns His
land with His choicest blessings” (Sama-V. ii. 3, 1,
4,2; andi. 1, 3, 7, and 2).
There InprA, “mahan INDRA parashcha”— Lord
great and supreme (Rig.-V. i. 1, xv. 5),
“sahasran yasya rataya uta va santi b’huyasi: | ”
“ whose bounties are in thousands, and even more”
(Rig.-V. i. 1; xxi. 8).
** ya ekashcharshaninam vasunamirajyati |”’
“who alone rules over mankind and their wealth”
(Rig.-V. i. 1; xiii. 9).
was addressed as —
“INDRA raye,” “Opulent Indra!” “ asaditte vib’hu
prab’hu,” “whose own are riches in abundance,
enough and to spare” (Rig.-V. i. 1; xvii. 4-7).
“twamasya pare rajaso vyomana: swab’hutyoja avase
@hrishanmana: |
chakrishe b’humim pratimanamojaso s pa: swa: pa-
rib’hureshya Divam. ||”
“Firm in thy counsels, O Indra! thou abidest in
thine own strength, even beyond that bright expanse
104
of Heaven; thou hast made the earth; thou hast
been the type of vigour; and thou hast encom-
passed the sky, and the firmament, even unto the
Heavens.”
“twam b’huva: pratimanam prit’hivya rishwavirasya
brihata: patirb’hu: |
vishwamapra antarik’sham mahitwa satyamadd’ha na-
kiranyastwavan. | |”
‘“‘ Thou art the image of the wide earth, and Lord of
the boundless realms above; thou fillest the whole
Heaven with thy majesty; indeed there is none other
like unto thee!” (Rig.-V. i. 4; xiv. 12, 18.
δ ; :
* mad’hu DIAUR astu na: PITA!”
‘“‘ May our Father, Heaven, be favourable (sweet) to
us!” (Rig.-V. i. 6; xvii. 7.)
“INDRA kratunna ab’hara PITA putreb’hyo yat’ha.” |
“Ὁ Indra! bring us wisdom, as a father to his chil-
dren!” (Sama-V. i. 3, 1, 7); for—
“ vasyam INDRASI me pituruta b’hraturab’hunjata : |’? ;
‘Thou art dearer to me, O Indra! than either father
or brother, who both have abandoned me!” (Sama-
V.1. 3, 2, 5,10); and — :
** shradd’ha hi te, Maghavan, parye DIVI!”
“ Faith in thee, O thou rich in blessings! exalts us
to Heaven!” (ibid. i. 2, 3, 4, 8.)
“pra sam RAJAN charshaninam INDRAWN stota nav-
yan girb’hi: |
Naran nrishaham manhishtam!”
105
“Q praise anew the king of mankind with your
songs; praise him, the hero, the conqueror, the ever-
bountiful Indra!” (Sama-V. i. 2; i. 4,10); for—
**INDRO vishwasya rajati.”
“ Indra meee over all!” (Sama-V. i. 5, 2, 2, 10.)
He is —
* PITA Devanan, janita sudak’shyo, vishtambo DIVO,
@haruna: prit’hivya: |”
“The father and noble progenitor of the gods, the
pillar of Heaven, and support of the earth” (Sama-V
ii. 1, 1, 10,2). He is “Swa:-pati:” the Lord of Hea-
ven, and like the Sun also, “ Prit’hu: patir-Divas »—
“ Prit’hu, Lord of the Sky” or “of the Day” (Sama-
VY. i. 5, 1, 3)—“yo devasya shavasa prarina asu”—
“who brings forth life with power divine” (Sama-V.
i. 5, 2, 3,10).
But since “‘ Heaven,” as “ Father,” derives his life-
giving energy from the Sun, who is “asura,” ‘ pos-
sessing life,” and “Indreva,” “like Indra” (Sama-V.
1, 2, 3, 6, etc.)—the Sun is called “ Pitus-Pita,”
“‘ Father’s Father” (in Sama-V. ii. 6, 2,7, 2). For
the “light and life” of “the Sun” is inseparable
from “ Heaven”; since —
“srayanta iva SURYAN vishwed INDRA-sya b’hak’-
shata |
vasuni jato janimanyojasa prati b’hagan na did’-
hima: | | ”
‘“‘ In looking up to the Sun for health, you receive
every gift from Indra; from whom we obtain abun-
106
dant riches as our birthright” (Sama-V. i. 3, 2,
3, 5).
Thus, we often find these two principal and in-
separable deities—“ Heaven” and the “Sun,” “IN-
DRA” and “AGNI”—worshipped together as one,
“ INDRAGNI,” as, 6. g. (Sama-V. ii. 1, 3, 7—3, 1, 9;
and ii. 2, 1, 9, etc. )—
“INDRE AGNA namo brihatsuvriktimerayamahe |
@hiya d’hena avasyava: ||’
“We extol, worship, and praise Indra and Agni, the
two together; looking for their help, in our devotion”
(Sama-V. ii. 2, 1, 9); yea—
“ta huve YAYOR idam papne vishwam pura kritam |
INDRAGNI na mard’hata: ||”
“T call upon the two celebrated ones, by whom all
this world was made of old; Indra and Agni, you
two in one, do not forsake me!” (Sama-V. ii. 2, 2,
8), ete.
The above examples, which might be multiplied
abundantly, from the same ancient source, show that
‘“ Heaven,” as Parent of men, was inseparable in
worship from the fountain of his own “ light and
life,” the Sun; and that as in India, so also in
Greece, “ Ζεύς (Οὐρανός), and (Ζεύς) “Ἥλιος, his
head, were ONE,—“ Δεσπότης κόσμου, and “ ZOHS
ΦΩΣ."
In like manner, also, as we have seen that in all
probability we may bring back DN to its simplest
primitive bs, so also, if there be any priority in the
107
monosyllables DIU, DIU-S, DIO, DIAU-S, or DIV, we
would look upon DIU and DIV as identical, and
as anterior to DIU-S or DIAU-s. DIU (neut.), the
“bright expanse of Hzaven,” became DIU-S ( fem.),
the “life-giving rays,’ which proceed from DIU-S
(masc.), the Author and Parent of that life-giving
light, AGNI, the Sun, (Ignis, “ dyévntos,”—* ἁγνὸς
Θεός" Pind.); for, as Homer (Il. 6, 189) says —
“rowOa δὲ πάντα δέδασται, ἕκαστος δ᾽ ἔμμορε τιμῆς" "ἢ
But as those three cannot exist separate (since
“ Fire,” “ Light,” “‘ Day,” and “ Heaven,” are all told
in one word), and make together ONE bright and in-
divisible whole—this ‘ fountain of life-giving light”
-- ὟΝ MS, οὐρανός) was also expressed by the length-
ened form (Dio,) “ DIAU-S,” which, like DIU-8, is both
masculine and feminine, and means, when feminine,
Day (“ Diss,” Ovid. M. ii. 25), “ the highest Sky,”
“ Heaven,” and “Swarga,” or “ Paradise’; and is
* See this treated at length by J. Lyd. de M. pp.
51, seq., and spiritualised by S. Ephrem, in Serm.
adv. Ser. Lxxiii.
t Comp. “ Dies” for “deus” or “dea,” in “ CurE
pies”; Iguvin. Tab. iv. 4, which Lanzi (Sagg. Et.
L. vol. iii. p. 721) reads, “Core Die,” for Proser-
pine. But Grotefend (Rud. L. Umb. iii. pp. 17, 21)
reads it ‘“ xouperves,” for “ Juno Curitis,” or “ Kuperias,”
etc.
108
regularly declined in most of its cases in the Vedas.
When masculine, however, it may be taken for “ the
Sun,” as, perhaps, in this passage of the Sama-Veda
(ii. 9, 18, 2) — |
* Yajishtam twa yajamana —
parijmanamiva DIAM, hotaram charshaninam, | '
Shochishkesham.”
“We worship thee, most worthy of worship! (‘ Ya-
jishta,? ‘ Yajata,? ‘ Yazata,’ ‘Yazd,’ ‘ Yazdan,’ bby)
like the Sun, revolving (or like Heaven, surround-
ing), “μάντιν ἐπιχθονίοις ἔξοχον᾽ (Pind.) ‘ χρυσοκόμαν
᾿Απόλλωνα, (Eurip.)—‘ ῬΙΤΌΒ- ΡΙΤΑΒΑΜ, the Father
of Heaven, who is the Father of men.”
We have thus endeavoured to bring back ΘΕΟΣ,
DEUS, to its root DIU,-S, masc. fem. and neut.,
the “Sun,” and “ bright vault of Heaven above”—
‘HOC SUBLIME CANDENS”—for in the east, ‘‘ Heaven,”
anon ‘“ candet,” is white; and the “ air” is ardent.
And we have seen that Θεός meant, originally, not
‘a god,” as it does generally in Greek writers, but
that long anterior to their time it was used to express
the great and bright expanse of Heaven, which is
ONE—od μόνον εἷς ἐστὶν οὐρανός, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδύνατον γε-
νέσθαι mrelovs,—Which was thought ἀΐδιος ἄφθαρτος ὧν
καὶ ἀγένητος, ““ eternal being, imperishable and un-
created” —(for they knew Him not who says: “ Be-
hold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and
the former shall not be remembered!” etc.)—and
was worshipped at first—xai γὰρ τοῦτο τοὔνομα (οὐρα-
vos) θείως ἔφθεγται παρὰ τῶν apyalov—as the “ first,”
109
or “ only God.” *—( Arist. de Celo, i. 9.) We have
also seen that “ déva-s,” ‘“ divus,” is inferior to Diu-s,
or Dju-piter, who was ὑψυμέδων or ὕψιστος ---
“ ἕν κράτος, els δαίμων γένετο, μέγας ἀρχὸς ἁπάντων."
—(Orph. fr. vi.)
So that Drav-s, Heaven, or Dru-s, Ιου Πατηρ, Dsvu-
PITER, Ζεύς, Duus, and Θεός, like Ex and Exonm,
were adored together as inseparable, as head and
body of the Great and Powerful ONE above.
‘We see, then, clearly, that the original worship of
Θεός (Diu-s or Div), and that of the Divi, are in
themselves different; and that, although mingled to-
gether in practice by a degraded people, what applies
to the former, will seldom suit the latter. For these
were each only an energy or a property of “the
Sun,” DIU-S, (who, as author of life and light, was,
ἕν τό wav,)—singled out and personified by men who,
Macrobius says, “ diversee virtutes Solis nomina diis
dederunt” (Sat. i. xvii.). But “the Sun,” “ἡ μονὰς,
ἄῤῥην καὶ yoviywrdrn”—from which they all emanated,
was “εἷς Zeds”— οὕτω yap καὶ 6 “Anus,” says Archy-
tas, ““ φερόμενος Sia TH ζωοφόρω κύκλω διανέμει τοῖς ἐπὶ
yas πᾶσι καὶ γενέσιος καὶ τροφᾶς καὶ βιοτῶς τὰν ποθάκου-
* Thus, ¢.g., we find that Tafri which in Tatar
means the “ open Sky,” is the term also by which
they express the “ Most-High God,” ‘“ Allah-ta’ala.”
It is the term adopted in the Orenburg-Tatar version
of the New Testament, for “* God.”
110
cay μοῖραν, οἷον εὐνομίαν, ----διὸ καὶ Νόμιος καὶ Νεμήϊος
Ζεὺς καλέεται," --(Ερ᾿δ0. iv. p. 126, ed. Gil.)—for, as
we read in the Vishnu Purana (ii. ix. 6, 7),
“tadad’haranjagachchedan sadevasura manusham. |”
“ This world, with all the gods, demi-gods, and men,
is supported by the Sun.” Since, however, “ Ζεύς"
could not be “ Οὐρανὸς παγγενέτωρ,"
“ ἐν στέρνοισιν ἔχων φύσεως ἄπλητον ἀνάγκην"
(Orph. H. iv. 6), but for “ ξἕξωῆς φῶς, Ἥλιον, τὸν
αὐτοφυῆ---κχρόνου πατέρα--- ἀθάνατον Ala—(Orph. H.
viii.); we have fixed upon DIU-S, in particular, as
the origin of “ DEUS” and “ΘΕΟΣ, because, as a
masculine, it is the creative Power; “ Φῶς καὶ εὐθὺ
καὶ μόνιμον, ἄῤῥεν τε καὶ δεξιόν," (J. Lyd. de M. pp.
42, 44).----ζωαρκέος, ὦ ἄνα, πηγῆς
αὐτὸς ἔχων Kdnida—(Procel. It. in 5. 2).
We do not think that either the relative position
of Div-s, m., the Sun, and Diav-s, f, Heaven,* or
the whole type of life expressed in DIU, masc.,
* In, Div-s and Diav-s, (and perhaps, in “ Dyavi,”
“ Heaven and earth” §.-V. ii. 7, ὃ, 14, 1), we have
the probable origin of the phallic worship and its
rites, as they spread from east to west; from the Yin
and Yang principles of Chinese physics, to the myth
of Adonis and Venus. (“ Venus,” not from “ Be-
noth,” in “ Succoth-Benoth,” 2 Kings xvii. 30, as
Selden (de D. Syr. 1. ¢.) thinks, but from the Celtic
‘* Ben” or * Bean” (pron. “ Ven”), a “ woman.”
111
fem., and neut., are a mere coincidence. We believe,
on the contrary, that although the distinction may
not have been adhered to by the bulk of Vaidic
worshippers, who— τὸ yap ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν εἰώθασι
λέγειν Odpavov—év ᾧ καὶ τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ἰδρῦσταί φασι""---
(Arist. de Ceelo, i. 9, 8, 9), yet that this “two” or
“THREE” in “ONE,” is a genuine relic of ancient
Monotheism among men, who, having lost the know-
ledge of “ the true God,” still endeavoured to wor-
ship, as such, the One source of Light from which
they received Life and all its blessings. DIU-S ac-
counts at once for “ Devs” and “ Θεός" being mase.
and fem.* It leads us back to Gen. i. 27; but only
to forbid the mind to dwell on the mystery, with
human thoughts. It explains how “ Heaven” is both
“ father” and “ mother” (Sama-V. ii. 4, 2, 3, 2; and
3, 1, 16, 2, etce.); and how “Jupiter” is also both
‘* father” and “ mother” of the gods (Creuzer Symb.
ili. 543), since —
“ Ζεὺς ἄρσεν γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη "
—(Orph. fr. vi.)
It shows how VIRAJ, proceeded from BRAHMA (Manu
* E.g., “ ducente deo,” Virg. Ain. ii. 632, “non
dea” (says Macrob. Sat. iii. c. 8), ‘nam ed apud
Calvum Acterianus affirmat legendum”: “ pollentem-
que deum Venerem, non deam,” etc.; and Cic. de N.D,
i. 28,— Adpodirov and ᾿Αφροδίτην,---τὼ Θεώ, 2%. 6., Περσε-
φόνη καὶ 4ημήτηρ, etc.
112 |
Sanh. i. 82), who (in the Kumara Samb’h. ii. 7) is
addressed thus by the sages :-—
“ Stripunsavatmab’hagau te b’hinnamurte: sisrik’shaya |
prasutib’haja: sargasya taveva pitarau smritau. ||”
“ Thy integral parts are male and female, when;
wishing to create, thou dividest thy form. They are
called the two authors of nature dividing itself to
produce.” It also accounts for “ dies” being m. and
f.; and for “the Sun” (“Hyws m., and ἕλη f.), being
of both genders; 6. g., either generally mase., and
very rarely fem., as in the Vedas; or fem., as in the ᾿
North; e.g., “ Kona Glens,” or “Glens bedia,” “the
wife of the Brilliant ;’—“ ey-gléa,” ἄυγλη,---΄ déttur
Mundilfsera, systar Mana,” “ the daughter of the re-
volving Sphere, the sister of the Moon,” ete. (Snorra
Edda, Skaldsk. pp. 126, 177; ed. Rask. Lex. Myth.
Edd. p. 716, etc.)—or of com. gender, as in the She-
mitic idioms. In Syriac, it is sometimes expressly
fem., as 6. g.,in Lib. Adami, i. p. 222, where a reason
is given for it.
But, as Gesenius says (Thes. L. H. p. 49), in
speaking of the etymology of 2%: “ Quis in tanta
harum rerum obscuritate certam sententiam dixerit?”
It would, therefore, only savour of conceit in us, if we
were to do more than offer an opinion on the subject,
together with our reasons for it, leaving our readers to
judge for themselves; especially as, in some parti-
culars, we are at variance with authorities from which
it seems arrogant to differ. With St. Augustine
:
ταν:
τὶ
TS
(de Trin. lib. i. ὁ. 2, 3), therefore, “" Non me pigebit
sicubi heesito, queerere: nec pudebit, sicubi erro, dis-
cere. Quisquis hee legit, ubi pariter certus est, per-
get mecum: ubi pariter hesitat, querat mecum: ubi
errorem ~— ae redeat ad me; ubi meum,
revocet me.’
Yet, Stilt is difference of opinion on the subject
even among those high authorities. For instance,
Prof. Bopp (Comp. Gr. p. 4, 15) derives θεός from
déva-s,” while at p. 134, he brings Ζεύς and “ Ju-
piter” from Div. But he seems to us to make light
of quantity; for he derives the short ὄ of θεός from
the long @ of “ déva-s”; and, vice versd, the long 7 of
* divo,” and “ dio,” from the short 7 of “ div.”
Dr. Spiegel ( Avesta, ch.i. p. 6) says, that “ déva-s,”
in Latin ‘‘ deus,’ comes from “div” or “dyu.” But,
with Dr. Windischmann, he derives θεός from the
root “d’ha.” This is, we presume, on the supposition
that the Sanscrit d’h is represented by the Greek 6.
Now, while it is quite correct to say that (as e.g. in
dad’hami — τίθημι) 0 takes sometimes the place of dh
in Sanscrit, it is nevertheless to be noticed, that,
whereas d’h is a strong aspirate, @ differs from it.
For the Greek ὃ and @, pronounced exactly like the
Icelandic “ stungen duss” and “ thuss,” or th in “ this
thing,” express each a single articulation, naturally
allied to sibilants and to dentals, from which it differs
by “lisping.” Whereas d’h expresses a double arti-
culation ;—a clear dental or cerebral d, and an ὦ as-
pirate, as in “hat.” The d clashes with the h and
9
114
causes a “break” in the articulation, not inaptly
represented by the apostrophe in “dh.” Θεός there-
fore, were it in sound alone, is more nearly related
to “ Diu-s” or “ Deus,” “ Ζεύς," or even to“ Ju,” than
to “@ha.” aa
Prof. Lassen (Indische Alt. vol. i. p. 755) says,
“Die bei den Indo-germanischen Voélkern am weitesten
verbreitete, allgemeine Benennung Gottes lautet im
Sanscrit déva-s, in Griechischen Θεός, im Lateinischen
‘deus,’” ete. (See also Pott. Etym. F. i. 101, sq.)
It is true that “déva-s” is oftener met with than
any other appellative for “ God,” in Indian writers;
because, alluding almost constantly to some particular
“déva-s,” inhabitant of “DIV,” ‘“ Heaven,’ or “ di-
vine,” they spoke of him or of her as of an individual
“ divus.” But DIV the parent of the “déva-s,”
“ divi,” was never altogether lost sight of. The very
worship of a “déva-s,” led thoughtful minds upwards
to DIv. In like manner, as “θεοὶ θεῶν" ---“ Θεοῦ
παῖδες," ete., reminded the wise of @es, who is
* aidsios”—“* πρεσβύτατον τῶν ὄντων Θεός: ἀγέννητον
γάρ" ‘els Θεὸς ὅς μόνος ἐστί,".--' πατὴρ θεῶι," etc. So
that not only in the later Brahmanical times, did
Arjuna say to Bhagavan, (Bhag. Gita. x. 12—14)—
BHAVAN! Ὁ Eternal! —
purushan shashwatan diviam ADIDEVAM ajam vib’hum ||
ahustwam Rishaya: sarve Devarshir Naradastat’ha. |
“The chief sages, and even that Heavenly Rishi
Narada declare, one and all, that Thou art that
essence, eternal in the heavens, anterior to all the
115
déva-s, uncreated, over all, supreme”! “Swayan-
chaiva bravishi me”! “ Nay, thou sayest it to me,
thyself” !
* sarvametadritam manye yanmam vadasi Keshava! |
na hi te, BHAGAVAN! vyaktim vidurdeva na
danava:” | |
“T take as truth itself, every word of thy lips, Ὁ
Keshava! No! neither the sons of Danu, nor even
the déva-s, know thine appearance, O Thou wor-
shipful ”!
* swayamevatmanatmanam vett’ha twam Purushottama!|
b’hutab’havana b’hutesha DEVADEVA jagatpate!” | |
* Thou, best of beings, author of all existence, Lord
of all, God of Gods, Supreme Ruler of this world!
Thou knowest Thyself, conscious as thou art of thine
own essence,” ete.
But even in the primitive ages of Vaidic lore, we
find as we have seen, that Indra (DIU or DIV),
“Heaven,” was “purvyo—eka it,” “of old” “verily
ONE,” “PITA devanam janita sudak’sha” (Sama-V.
ii. 1. 1. 10), “the Father and august ancestor
of the gods, “ (déva-s)” who “chakrishe b’humim,”
“made the earth” (Rig.-V. i. 4; xiv. 12), and who
“vishwasya rajati” “ rules over all”! (Sama-V. 5. 2.
2. 10.)
But who is that “In-prvipuaL,” ADITI? myste-
rious even to the Vaidic priest who, of old, chanted:
(Rig.-V.i. 6; xvi. 10).
Aditi Diaur Aditirantarik’sham Aditirmata sa Pita sa
putra: |
116
Vishwe deva Aditi; pancha jana Adititir janam Aditir
janitwam. || |
“ Aditi is Heaven; Aditi is the firmament; Aditi
is Mother, she is Father, she is Son; Aditi is all the
gods; Aditi is the five classes of men; Aditi is birth
and reproduction.” 3
The scholiast (on Rig.-V. i. 6; xxxii. 16) explains
“ADITI” by “adinak’handaniya va devamata,” ‘ impe-
rishable, indivisible, or the ‘mother’ of the gods”;
and (at xvi. 10) says of her: “Aditi:—diaur-naka:” |
“ Aditi is ‘Heaven ’—and what is she not?” “saiva
MATA nirmatri jagato janani | saiva PITA utpadaka:” |
“she is both ‘ Mother’ 7. e., maker and bringer-forth
of the world, and also ‘ Father’ who generates it.”
It is impossible not to compare the above with
what Lao-tsze says of TAOU (Bk. i. cxxv.), “Yew
yih-wuh; hwen-tching, sian T’heen-Tih seng.” ‘* There
is a Being who is One; who existed before Heaven
and Earth.” “tsi-i! liao-i!” “how calm! how sub-
tle”! “too-wei, Θὰ] puh ke,” “ He exists by Himself
(or alone) and changes not”! “ko-i wei T’heen-hea
moo.” ‘“ He may be considered as the Motusr of the
whole world.” (‘"T’heen-Tih che she,” ¢. i.) “Puh chih
ke ming; tsze-che yue TAOU.” I know not his name;
by way of a name I call him “Taou. “TAouU”
means “a way,” a “door of entrance” into existence
for all beings; and as such, it may be compared with
the account Movers (Phen. i. p. 594, sg.) gives of the
Pheenician goddess “ Tir’ata” (14352, SAYIN) “ Atar-
gatis”—(though taken there for the earth). This
117
“Shing-MOO,” “ Holy Mother of all,” is represented in
the “ San-kiao-yuen-lew,” p. 9, 10, as a lady with a
female attendant who holds a fan of feathers, and she
is called “sian-T’heen tai-How,” “the great queen of
the first (or fore) Heaven”; and, “yuen-T’heen ta
shing-How,” the “ great and Holy Queen of the highest
(oldest) Heaven.” Both “ADITI” and “TAOU” may
be compared in their capacity of “ Mother,” with the
symbolical hieroglyphic for “‘ Heaven,” (Champ. gr.
Hg. p. 57,) which is “a woman protecting and
nourishing her offspring”; and reads, “ne,” “ to be,”
‘existence;” and also “ne” or * de,” fem. “" Heaven.”
¥rom thence, no doubt, came “die ursprungliche Idee
der ersten Mutter, der grossen Mutter, die alles was
lebt aus Licht bringt” (Creuzer 5. ii. 466, 523)—who
figures always as the “ Asiatic goddess” — Μητὴρ
Ocdv”— Οὐρανία as fem. of Οὐρανός, ““ Οὐρανίη ’Adpodirn”
-- ἡ μέν γέ που πρεσβυτέρα καὶ ἀμήτωρ Οὐρανοῦ
θυγάτηρ, ἣν δὴ καὶ οὐρανίαν ἐπονομάζομεν" (Plato, Symp.
sec. 8, ed. Bek.)—‘‘ Mater detim,” ‘“ Magna Dea,”
“ πολύμαστος" (Guhl, Ephes. p. 78), “ Magna Dea
Ephesiorum !”= Οὗπι ἄνασσα" (Call. H. in D. 240).
*““API-r-no bod’hi Indra!”—“twaminna apyan”—‘ Ὁ
Heaven be our fostering friend—for thou art akin to
us!” (Sama-V. i. 3, 1, 5, 7; 2, 2, 8.)
This seems to account for DIAU-S “ Heaven,” being
both mase. as “ Father,” “ Protector,” ‘“ Saviour,” etc.,
and fem. as “ Mother,” who nourishes, etc. And it
seems also to throw light on the following line, which,
otherwise, is obscure: (Sama-V. ii. 6. 2. 7. 2.)—
118
garb’he Matu: pitus Pita vididyutano ak’share |
Sidannritasya yonima |
“the Sun, Father of Father (7. 6. of ‘Heaven,’ to
which he gives ‘light and life’) shines forth in the
imperishable womb of his Mother (Heaven), while he
rests there in the bosom of truth.”
It would be both rash and presumptuous to dis-
pute the reasons, or to disparage the profound learn-
ing, which have led those great men to differ among
themselves, as to the etymology of Θεός; while
they all agree in deriving “deus” from “ déva-s.”
We have no doubt they are right, although we ean-
not yet see as they do. But we rather lean towards
the opinion of Buttmann, who (Mythologus, i. p. 28),
says, speaking of “ Ζεύς" and * Διώνη," “Ziv” and
Zavo,” * Jovis” and “ Juno”—“ welche Namen alle
mit Θεός and θέαινα eigentlich sind.”* For, setting
aside the ‘feeling’ that leads one instinctively to
* Ζήν or Zdv, Ζηνός, etc., is not like Ζεύς, from
DIU; but only the Greek idea of Ζεύς, “ ἀπὸ τοῦ Gy,”
declined. We also differ from him at p. 173, where
he says on the subject of “ Διόνυσος,᾽---“ Bekantlich
heisst dewen auf Indisch Gott, welches wort mit
Deus, mit Ζεύς und mit Διός einerlei ist.” As “ Ju-
bar”—« Φώσφορος," may possibly, have something to
do with Diu-b’hara, bara or vara; so also, perhaps, may
“ Διόνυσος" be compared with Diu (acc. Diun), and
ushas, “Ἢ aurora.”
119
look elsewhere than among the “ plebs cceli,” for the
parent of Θεός or of ‘“ Deus,” we do not appreciate
the reasons for which, while “ Ζεύς," “ Σδεύς, “ Δεύς"
(and, under Attic influence, “ @ei;”*), “ diuvei,”
ἐ δου ει," ‘juveis,” ‘* Diovi,” ‘ dies,” “ dies-piter,”
“diu” or “Του Ilarep,” * Διός," “ Ai,” “Δία, are all
with one consent derived from Diu, Div, or Dio,—
“ Déus” and “ @és” on the other hand, are, with no
small trouble, exorcised out of the adjective “ DEVA-S.”
Is it because Ζεύς being used in the singular, and
“Θεός in the sing. and plur. as mase. and fem., Ζεύς
corresponds “ practically” with Diu, ‘“‘ Heaven” and
θεός, and θεοί, with “déva-s” and “ déva-s;” or with d’ha,
“to uphold”? The first reason would be, “ prac-
tically” speaking, valid, if DIU or Div had no plural:
but it has both dual and plural; so that the “ plu-
rality” of θεός may be accounted for. Besides, we
have “ Jupater,”’ or ‘“ Djovis,” in the plural in Igu-
vin. Tab. iv. 52; and vii. 13, 50, where we read
“* Jovies,” which, whether it be taken for “ magis-
trates” or not, is the plural of “ diu” or Ιου Πατεῤ (like
ποις and pty —« yazd” and “ yazdan”).—As re-
gards the “ common” gender of ὁ and ἡ ‘“ θεός," that,
as we have seen, betrays its origin from DIU-S, masc.
and fem.—As to the ““ θ᾽ of θεός, it is, in pronun-
ciation, more nearly related to the sibilants “¢” in
. ™ It is in this sense that at p. 89 “ @es” is men-
tioned under the “ Attic” dialect, instead of “ Doric.”
120
“ Zebs,” Or “oa” in * Suds” (comp. Span. “zapato” pr.
“ thapato”; and “ ciencia” pr. “ thienthia,” etc.), or
to the dental “d” in Δεύς (pr. of old probably, as it
is now, ‘ theus,” soft) or in “ Deus,” as we pronounce
it; or even the palatal “7” or “g” (as “théné” for
“‘ venou” in a Romance-dialect) than to “d’h,” either
dental or cerebral, as it is pronounced in India;
where, on the other hand, the semi-vowel “y” is
frequently changed into “j” or “dj” as it is im
Bengal. And as to the short ὅ of θεός or of Déus—so
short that it often counts as nothing,—we cannot help
thinking that, as we have already said, it is a more
fitting representative of the short “7” in Div, or of
the semi-vowel “y” in Dyu, Diu, than of the com-
pound (and almost invariably long) vowel @, in
Déva-s.
Prof. Bopp (Comp. gr. i. p. 4, Eng. tr.) says,
“From this dropping of the ὁ or wu in the Indian
diphthongs ὃ and 6, it may happen that a, 6, or
0, answer to these diphthongs”; “thus dévrz, Lat.
levir, Gr. δαήρ; déva-s ‘God’ Θεός," etc. But it
appears to us,—1.) that whether the 6 (compound of
a+i pron. as one) be long or short, the element “7”
still forms a part of the sound e (which in the “ per-
fect” Sanscrit is reckoned long as being a compound
vowel.—2.) The element “7” therefore, still exists in
the short ¢ of θεός or Déus, as well as in the é of déva-s;
as also in the short ε of Ζεύς, which reappears as a
short “2” or “y” in Zws=Aus, Ζιι--- Διί, Za—=—Aia—
3.) If “e” is admitted to be a fit representative of “7”
121
or “y,” in Ζεύς, as from DIU,—why not also in
“ déus” or “ @eds”?—4.) What becomes of the “vu” of
“déva-s,” in “déus” and ““ θεός "ἢ +“ Déva-s,”. “ divus,”
and “dévri” (déva) Sajo lévir—keep throughout their
eases the “v,” as a binding articulation, indispens-
able between the long vowels δ and 4, and graceful
between the long and short of Divas, Divi, Divo, etc.
This “v” reappears in the digamma of “ SvovFer,”
“iuvei,” “diovi,” “Jovis,” ete., while not a vestige of it
is found in the oblique cases of “ Déus” or of ““ θεός."
Now—5), the presence of this connecting “v” or “Fy”
rather than the absence of it in “de-us” and ““θε-ός,"
argues a polished state of the language; for “divi” is
more agreeable to the ear than “ Διί" We should feel
inclined therefore,—6.) to look upon “ Déus,” “ dé-i,”
“dé-o,” “dé-um,” etc. and Θεός, θε-οῦ, θε-ῷ, θε-όν, θε-ῶν,
θε-ο-ἴς, etc. as a more ancient declension of DIUS, than
“di-v-as,” “di-v-i,” etc., indicated by the Vaidic ace.
“di-um” for the more modern “di-v-am.” So that,
for aught we know, “deus” and θεός, may be older,
and continue more true to their monosyllabic origin
Diu-s, than does even Diu-s itself in the melodious
strains of Valmiki-Kokila. For as Dyus or Diu-s is
one syllable; so is “diis” and “dis,” “dii” and “ di”;
like Ζεύς, Θεύς, Θεός, Θεούς, etc., and “ Θεῶν, which
comes nearer to “di-(v)-am,” gen. pl. of DIU or DIV,
than to “ dévanam,” gen. pl. of “déva-s.”
- With every due deference therefore to the great scho-
lars above-named, and while wondering at derivations
like δαίμων from “atma,” “caminus” from “ ashment,”
122
ete., we still find it easier to bring “Deus,” Aevs, Θεός;
διου OF [Ιου(πατεῤ), Dios, Deos, Dio, Ddio, Dieu, Dia,
Diu, etc., from DYU or DIU-S, than from DEVA-S.
We do not think that in the beginning men sought
“the true God” from among a host of ready-made
and inferior gods. On the contrary, we believe that,
in like manner as DIU, DIV, preceded in existence
and as object of worship his offspring DEVA-S “ divi,”
so also was ‘ Θεὸς ἀγέννητος," “ εἷς," * μόνος," ““ Ζεὺς
πατήρ," “Ziv,” “Life itself,’ adored before “Θεοῦ
παῖδες, who, as Apollo said of them at Claros, are,
“ μικρὸν μέρος Θεοῦ". But since—
“rd μὲν γὰρ
πατρόθεν, ἐκ Διὸς εὔ---
χοντο ""---
they each took for their patronymic, the name of their
father, most in use; especially when worshipped in-
stead of him. So that on the one hand the same
men who professed their belief in “ éva @eov”—wor-
shipped with him a multitude of ““ Θεοί" as born of
him; and, on the other hand, following the example
of their Vaidic ancestors, they used “divus” exactly
as those did “deva-s,” and 6. g., called their “ Prin-
cipes Dei Coelum et Terra, Saturnus et Ops,”—* Dei
magni,” ‘“ Divi qui potes,” in thom ancient rituals
(Varro L. L. v. 57).
We lean, therefore, on the whole, to the ¢ opinion
of VY. Lennep (Et. Grac. sub. v. Ζεύς), who says:
“ Variee sunt forme nominum, quibus olim Jupiter,
deorum summus, appellabatur, ut Ζεύς, Ziv, Zdv, Als,
123
Διός et forte alia, quee omnia mihi quidem videntur
unum idemque nomen fuisse, dialectis diversorum
Greecizee populorum distinctum.—Inter hec nomen
Θεός, Atticis proprium, communi usu postea tritum
fuit tanquam appellativum Dei cujusvis,” etc. And
we believe accordingly, that the original creed of
only “‘ one God,” degenerated —* ἀσθενείᾳ δηλώσεως---
into idolatry; “Sore γνόντες τὸν Θεόν, οὐχ ὡς Θεόν ἐδό-
ξασαν ἤ εὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ’ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλο-
γισμοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία."
We would therefore, look up to the “source of light
and life” of our world, who was of old —“Raga,”
“ xoopoxpatwp, “ αἰεὶ πανυπέρτατος " —“ DEVA,” “ Φώσ-
gopos,” “ οὐράνιον, καὶ ζωῆς, das”—“ RITAM BRIHAT”
(AROS PS) a Mighty Truth, “ ἀληθής “ ὄμμα δικαιο-
σύνης —“*SHUCHI:” “ ἀμίαντος," ““ dyvds’—“* SUPAR-
WA:,” “Παιάν, “ with healmg wings”—“ DIUMAN
DEVAJATA:” ““ αἰθαλής," ““αὐτοφυής," “’AOA’'NATOX
ΖΕΥ͂ >,” whom Proclus (Η. in Solem) addresses thus:
“ κλῦθι, πυρὸς voepod βασιλεῦ---
---θεῶν πανάριστε, πυριστεφὲς, ὄλβιε δαῖμον,
εἰκὼν παωγγενέταο θεοῦ, ψυχῶν ἀνωγωγεῦ,
κέκλυθι, καὶ με κάθηρον ἁμαρτάδος αἰὲν ἁπάσης."
for, “ caldor cceli et inde anima,”—and, as Epicharmus
says— Est de sole sumptus ignis, isque totus mentis
est” (Varro, L. L. v.16); we would look, we say, to
“ Pitus-Pita,” the father of “ Heaven” “DIAUR-iva”
“with whom He is ONE” (S-V. ii. 6. 2. 6. 1; 3. 1.
6.1; 1.5. 1. 45 1.2.8.3. ete. Orph. H. viii. and
124
xxxiv.) rather than an inferior “ DEVA-S,” for an
emblem, however dim, of Him, “ who—
as WS oT OP bape γα
-ππο WW wo καὶ ἡ
wrt SI ge ent ope Gy οἱ»
dwells on high beyond the flight of Seraphim, from
whence he looks on me” ;—* the faithful attendant of
my daily life, my Sun and my God”! (Djellal ed-D.
p- 220). For He is “TO ΦΩΣ TO ’AAHOINON,
ς ῃ , ” 3 / > ‘ ’ ”
ὁ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς TOV κόσμον.
We have found MIGHT and MAJESTY in by,
HON and poy; and we believe also that in ΘΕΟΣ
we may find “ THE ONE supreme,” with whom “is
the FOUNTAIN OF LIFE, and in whose Light
alone we shall see Light.”
For ΘΕΟΣ, Devs, conveyed, like the object it was
intended to express, ONE idea of “ protecting ght
and life.” ‘“ Heaven,” says Alviss —
“ Himinn heitir med Ménnom,
Enn Hlyrnir med Gothom” :
is called —
“A covering (or veil) among men,
And a bower among the gods” *—
(Alvis-Mal. xii.) —
*“ Quoi par imber, et ignis, spiritus, et gravi terra;
Quzeque freto cava ceeruleo cortina receptat.”
—(Ennius, Annal. i. 16.)
125
made by Him who ΠΡ ἽΞ DY Moi “ stretcheth
the Heavens like a curtain” (Psalm civ. 2; Isaiah xl.
22). And “ Diaus Pita,” Protecting, or “trata,” Sa-
viour HEAVEN, DIU or DIV, “ Θεὸς ἀγένητος"---
“ Acan raochanhan qadhatanam,” “ the bright Heaven
of the self-existing lights,”* was always looked up
({
sub eodem tegmine celi.”—(Luer. ii. 661,
1. 986.) And “ceelo tegitur qui non habet urnam.”
(Lucan.) ‘“ Himinn” also means “a shield.”—(Virg.
Ain. lib. iv. 1.451.) “ Celi convexa.”—Compare
‘¢___ in altisono
celi clypeo” — (Ennius, Iphig.)
and “THe Lorp 1s A Sun AND SuretD” (Psalm
Ixxxiv. 12). From whence “ the earth”—
“ Jérth heitir meth Ménnom >
Enn meth Asom Fold’—
is called among men “a field,” which among the
gods is said to be “ covered” (Alvis-Mal. 10). Comp.
“sky,” Swed. a “ cloud,” a “ covering,” with “ sky ;”
and Sama-V. i. 2, 1, ὃ, 7; and 11. 4,14, 1). Indra—
“b’harti—opashamiva Diam,” ‘“ spreads Heaven like a
covering” —“ yatsamavartayad | Indrashcharmeva rodasi”
— with which he has enveloped Heaven and Earth
as with a mantle” (ibid. i. 2, 2, 4, 8), ete.
* The zend qadhata, “ self-existing,” “ uncreated,”
(swadatta ?) may be related to the Persian \ys “ Khu-
126
to, AS μάκαρ ἐπάγων ξωὴν ὁσίην---(ΟΥἸΡἢ.)---ἀπαθῆ τὴν
ἀρίστην ἔχοντα ζωήν---( Arist. de Οα]ο, i. 9, 14)—and
was invoked as—
3 la
“ Οὐρανὲ παγγενέτωρ," -“΄ πανυπέρτατε δαίμον |”
(Orph. H. iv.)
And this accounts for the idea of ‘ Oneness,” or
“Unity,” which seems to exist in the word Θεός, as it
is found occasionally in Greek writers; as, 6. g., “Θεόν
λασέμεν ἔρδων,᾽ σὺν Θεῷ, (comp. “ under God” sub
“ dio” vel ‘“‘divo,” etc.). And Simonides, fr. iv:—
ὦ παῖ, τέλος μὲν ΖΕΥΣ ἔχει βαρύκτυπος
πάντων ---
ὅπως ἕκαστον ἐκτελευτήσει ΘΕΟΣ.
And Cleanthes (H. in Joy. )—
“ΖΕΥ͂, φύσεως ἀρχηγὲ, νόμου μέτα πάντα KuBepvav,—
δύσμοροι, οἵτ᾽ ἀγαθῶν μὲν ἀεὶ κτῆσιν ποθέοντες,
οὔτ᾽ ἐσορῶσι ΘΕΟΥ͂ κοινὸν νόμον, οὔτε κλύουσιν,
ᾧ κεν παθόμενοι σὺν νῷ βίον ἐσθλὸν ἔχοιεν ""
a
But that unity in worship continued dimly per-
ceived among the better-informed only; while the
ἐς plebs ceeli,” the whole host of Heaven, all the cre-
ated dévas, divi, gods and demi-gods, endowed with
da,” God, which (see above, p. 47) means Sway-
amb’hu, MM’. (see Burnouf, Yacna, pp. 553-556);
rather than the Ar. »,> (pr. “ good” in Egypt),
* good,” “ excellent” (see Pfeifferi Dub. vex. p. 148),
127
human passions good and bad, became the sole object
of worship of the common people, instead of the One
God.
That one idea, then, the original import of Θεός,
once lost in gross idolatry, Θεός no longer implied
“Heaven,” as “the One God”; but it now chiefly
meant “a god” only,—one of the many “ gods” ha-
bitually supposed to inhabit Heaven.. And, although,
as Eusebius remarks ( Preep. Ev. lib. iii. p. 141, ed. Col.),
πρώτιστα πάντων τὸν πρῶτον ἀφορίσαντες θεὸν, εἰδένας φασί
τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι πρῶτόν τε ὄντα καὶ πάντων θεόν,
πατέρα τε καὶ βασιλέα" μεθ᾽ ὅν γένος τὸ θεῶν ὑπάρχειν
δεύτερον, ἑπόμενον δὲ τὸ δαιμόνων, τὸ δὲ ᾿Ηρώων, τέταρτον,
yet such a religion was not that of the many. But,
φάσκοντες πρῶτον ἁπάντων τοὺς Οὐρανίους δεῖν καὶ aife-
ρίους θεοὺς θεραπεύειν, *¢ while saying they ought to
worship the celestial and the ethereal gods first ;
δεύτερον, τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς δαίμονας, τρίτον, τὰς τῶν “Ἡρώων
ψυχὰς, τέταρτον, τοὺς φαύλους, καὶ πονηροὺς ἀπομειλίσσε-
ται daipovas;” then, in the second place, the good spi-
rits ; thirdly, the souls of great men; and, fourthly,
to propitiate the evil spirits; yet ἔργῳ συγχέουσι τὰ
πάντα, “ they, in fact, mixed it up altogether,” μόνας
ἀντὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων, τὰς πονηρὰς δυνάμεις θεραπεύ-
οντες, καὶ ὅλοι ταύταις καταδουλόυμενοι" “ serving, out of
all those, the powers of evil alone, and giving them-
selves up wholly to worship them.”
It would be wrong to affirm that they all wilfully
did so. Yet it is true that even the greatest and the
best of them were led passively, by “ the vanity of
128
their mind;” and that, as Ulphilas renders it, “ riqi-
zeinai gahugdai visandans,” existing in a darkened |
imagination, “ they were alienated from the life of
God through the ignorance that was in them.” Even
Cicero, then, is right in finding fault with the “ deus
Plato,” for having no fixed opinion on the subject.
For, discoursing on Providence, this great man says
(de Leg. lib. x.): “Τὸ might not be difficult to prove
---ΩοὍς ἐπιμελεῖς σμικρῶν εἰσι θεοὶ οὐχ ἧττόν, ἢ τῷ μεγέθει
διαφερόντων, “that the gods are not less careful of
little things than of more important ones”; else-
where, he attributes the same care, not to “ the
gods,” but to Θεός, God; and further, again to the
θεοί, gods; and so on, repeatedly. While, on the
other hand, he speaks, as, ¢.g., in his Timeeus, of Θεός,
“‘God,” as Creator of the world; he attributes the same
office also to “Jupiter.” And in his Philebus, after
having taught in a masterly manner his views of the
supreme and overruling “ Σοφία καὶ Νοῦς," which ἄνευ
ψυχῆς οὐκ ἄν πότε yevoicOnv, aS belonging to Θεός, he
sums up thus: “ Od« οὖν ἐν μὲν τῇ Tou Διὸς ἐρεῖς φύσει,
βασιλικὴν μέν ψυχὴν, βασιλικὸν δὲ Νοῦν ἐγγίνεσθαι, διὰ τὴν
τῆς αἰτίας δύναμιν." “ You are then driven, by the
force of the argument, to conclude that there is in-
nate in the nature of Jove, both an over-ruling (a
regal) soul, and an over-ruling (a regal) mind,’—a
faculty which he attributes (in de Leg. lib. x.) to
“* the gods,” when he Says: “ αὕτη τοι δίκη ἐστὶ θεῶν,
οἵ ᾿᾽Ολυμπον ἔχουσιν."
“Πάντα γάρ που τὰ τοιᾶυτα" (says Max. Tyrius),
Ὁ Δ Σ e op ij) dell a Sl lel IRS aa
129
ἀπορίᾳ ὄψεως; καὶ ἀσθενείᾳ δηλώσεως, καὶ γνώμης ἀμβλύ-
τητι, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον δύνανται ἕκαστοι ἐξαιρόμενοι τῇ φαντασίᾳ ---
(ἴδοις ἄν)---πάντας δὲ πᾶσι διαφερομένους --- μὴ γὰρ ὅτε γέ-
vos γένει ὁμολογεῖ ἐν τούτοις ---ἀλλ᾽ ὀυδὲ ἀνὴρ ἀνδρὶ, ὀυδὲ
αὐτὸς αὑτῶ."
In the midst of such confusion, it became neces-
sary, as we have already remarked, once more to
distinguish the true Θεός from among “ the gods,”
“oi” and “ ai Geol.” This was done, generally speak-
ing, by means of the article ;—‘‘od γὰρ Θεόν ἀπλῶς
προσεῖπεν 6 (ἀπόστολος) TH τοῦ ἄρθρου προτάξει Tov
ITANTOKPATOPA δηλώσας" (says Clem. Alex. Strom.
iii. p. 460, ed. Col.)—and θεός, a god, became Ὁ
ΘΕΟΣ, emphatically, the ONLY TRUE GOD of
the Bible.
Vil.
We now come to the three terms found in the
Chinese classics, which have been mentioned as ren-
dering Ex, Exoan, ELonIM, Θεός, and ὁ Θεός, into that
language.
I—T’HEEN, FE “ Heaven.” Its radical (37th)
is TA Jy “great,” with a line above, to denote what
“is above,” and “ great.” (‘T’heen ta,” ‘“ Heaven is
great,” says Lao-tsze, Ὁ. xxv. Comp. Οὐρανός, “ ἀπὸ
τοῦ ἄνω ὁρᾶσθαι, Phurnut. de N. D. i. etc.) Like
“DIV,” T’HEEN, both means “ the Sky,” and is also
; a
130
frequently used in- the sense of “ Deus,” “ Θεός," as
the abode of a supreme and intelligent Power, who,
ruling from above, observes, and punishes or rewards,
the actions of men. We have seen that Confucius
had no distinct notions of SHIN; he therefore men-
tions T7HEEN much more frequently. Thus—
1) in the Chung- Yung (c. i, 1), T7HEEN-ming-che
wei sing, (which is rendered in the Mandchou trans-
lation, Abka-i hesebuhengge-be, Banin sembi:)—‘ That
which is ordered by Heaven is called ‘ nature’.”
2) ibid. (c. xiv. 3): shang, puh yuen T’HEEN; hea,
puh yew jin:—There is no situation in which a wise
man is not contented: “above, he does not repine
against Heaven; and below, he does not think evil of
men.”
3) ibid. (c. xvii. 3): T7HEEN-che seng wuh, peik
yen ke thsai, eul too yan. (In Mandchou : Urunako tergi
tedun-be dakhame nemebumbi:—“ In the production
of things, Heaven assuredly gives them increase ac-
cording to their capacity (or disposition ).”
4) ibid. (c. xvii. 4): The She-king (or book of
Odes) says: Show luh yu T’HEEN, paou koo ming-che,
tsze T’HEEN shin-che: “ The virtuous man receives
his earthly blessings from Heaven. His intentions
are only to value and to protect others; and (Mandch.
Abka-chi dakhame daptambi) he receives from Heaven,
χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, ‘ favour above favour’.”
5) ibid. (c. xx. 7): “In order to know men, ἃ
Ss Oe Υ ee a
131
man, puh ko-i puh chi T’HEEN, cannot but sonal
himself with Heaven.” :
6) ibid. (c. xxvi.): The She-king says: Wei
T’HEEN-che ming, yu muh puh i kae yue T’HEEN-che
so-i wei T’HEEN yay: “ The power of Heaven alone
is without limit; that, we may say, is the prerogative
of Heaven.”
7) ibid. (c. xxxii. 2, 3): T7HEEN-TE, “ Heavenly
virtue” is said (in c. xxxiii. 6) to be, Shang-T’ HEEN-
che tsae, “a thing from High Heaven.”
8) In the Shang-Lun (book i. c. ii. 4), Confucius
says: “ At fifteen, chi T7HEEN-ming, J understood the
Ming,* or the ‘ rule of Heaven’.”
9) ibid. (book iii. c. i. 12), Chee-kung, speaking of
Confucius, said: ‘Foo-tsze-che yen sing yu T’HEEN-
TAOU, puh-ko tih eul wan yay: “‘ As to ‘ master’s’
(nature) manner of speaking of the ‘ way of Heaven’
(or Providence, who rewards the good, and punishes
the wicked, Shoo-king, iii. 2, 3), I cannot understand
it the least.”
10) ibid. (book iii. c. ii. 26), Confucius says: Yu
so p’hei-chay, T’heen ye-che! T’heen ye-che! “ With
* Ming, in this sense, is, “‘ the right principles which
Heaven has ordered,’ should form a part of man’s
nature. (See above, Ch. Yung. i. and Shoo-king, i.
55 di..2; iti. 2.)
132
regard to what is evil, may Heaven preserve me from
it! may Heaven prevent it!”
11): ibid. (book v. ο. i. 10), Confucius says: Wo
shwuy k’he, ΚΘ T7HEEN hoo? ‘ Whom have I op-
posed? Have 1 opposed Heaven ὃ"
12) in the Hea-Lun (c. xvi. 7), Confucius says,
that the wise man has three objects of fear: Wei
T’HEEN-ming; wei ta-jin; wei Shing-jin-che yen. ‘ He
stands in awe of the commands of Heaven;—of men
in authority ;—and of the sayings of holy men.”*
13) Lao-tsze, in the Tao-te-king (book i. 9),
speaks of T7HEEN-che Taou “the way” (Taou, 6 Adyos)
“* of Heaven.”
14) ibid. (c. 10), he mentions the T7HEEN-MUN,
“ the gates of Heaven” (Ὁ Θ᾽ °N77 Psalm Ixxviii.).
Lao-tsze mentions very often T’heen-Tih, ‘‘ Heaven
and Earth,” as resulting from the two principles Yin
and Yang (see Le-ke, c. viii. x. ete.) (comp. Γαῖα
καὶ Οὐρανὸς --- ἐκ τῶν ἐγένοντο Ocoi—Hes. Theog. 45,
125); ¢.g., Tao-te-king, (book i. c. 5), T7HEEN-TIH
puh jin: “ Heaven and Earth have no affection” (in
particular for any one); that is to say, that “ the
temporal blessings of both are impartially bestowed”.
(‘‘ He causeth his Sun,” etc., and “ giveth seed to the
sower, and bread to the eater,” etc.) To Heaven
and Earth, the tivo great annual sacrifices, “ kiao”
* Or “sages”; or sometimes, also, “ the emperor”.
133
and “she” (Ch. Yung, c. xix.; and Le-ke, c. viii. x.)
were offered,-as being both the parents of all things,
“ δωτῆρες ἐάων" (Tao-te-king, c. vii).
To T’HEEN, then, as to the abode of SHANG-TE
and of his ministers (Geo! ᾿Ολύμπιοι Of China), a sacri-
fice was offered by the Emperor himself, as the most
solemn act of worship; and in order to promote “ Ta-
yih,” “ great unity” in religious rites. For it is ex-
pressly said, that, during that sacrifice, every god, and
even sse-fang SHIN, “the Spirits of the four quar-
ters,” received the homage respectively due to them.
(See Le-ke, c. viii. x. etc.) Throughout the classical
Chinese writings, therefore, we constantly meet with
such expressions as these: Shang-T’HEEN, “ High
Heaven” ;—Hwang-T’HEEN, “ Imperial Heaven”; and
also HWANG-T’HEEN SHANG-TE, “ Imperial Hea-
ven-Shang-Te” ;— T’HEEN-wei, “the fear of Hea-
ven” ;—T’HEEN-WEI, “the Majesty of Heaven” ;—
THEEN-sin, “ the heart, or intention of Heaven” ;—
T’HEEN-tsae, ‘ calamities sent from Heaven” ;—
T’HEEN-yih, ‘ Heaven’s minister” ;—T’HEEN-yuen-
tsze, ‘* Heaven’s chief son”; or, T’HEEN-tsze, “ Hea-
ven’s son,” meaning the Emperor, who is Heaven’s
Regent over T’HEEN-Hea, “ under Heaven,”—that is,
the Empire.
The above examples, all taken from classic authors,
go to prove that T’HEEN, “ Heaven,” is used by the
Chinese in a broad, indefinite sense, very much as it
is done by Christians, who seem to shrink from the
name of “ Gop,” and substitute “ Heaven” or “ Na-
134
ture” in His stead ;—like Οὐρανός, as παγγενέτωρ, and
πανυπέρτατος Aaiwwv; OF aS θεῶν ἕδος, αἰπὺς "Ολυμπος.--
(Hor. Ep. vi.)
({
deorum quidquid in Celo regit
Terras et humanum genus.”
T’HEEN, however, would be inadmissible as a sub-
stitute for Ex, Exoan, ELtonim, ΘΕΟΣ, or ὁ ΘΕΟΣ;
because —
1) being a visible object, it would lead to idolatry.
2) because the Joo (or disciples of Confucius) and
the Shamans (or Buddhists) adopt it, only as abode
of the Supreme Being, SHANG-TE; whom even the
latter, it appears from the “ Rituel Mandchou,” 17, 37,
acknowledge as “ Ruler in Heaven”; in like manner
as we use the term “ court,” for the judgments and
decisions of the judge who sits in that court. |
3) because the Taouists, while they acknowledge
that T’7HEEN ta, “ Heaven is great,”—that T’7HEEN
kiaou, ““ Heaven reaches to an immeasurable anti-
quity” (or, “is eternal,” as some say), they hold that
Taou-ta, “the Taou, ὁ Adyos,” is greater; for, as we
have already seen, “it is the origin of Heaven and
Earth”; and (Tao-te-k. ¢. vii.) is above all: for jin
fa Tih; Tih fa T’HEEN; T’HEEN fa TAOU; TAOU fa
tsze yan, “ Man follows the rule of the Earth; the
Earth follows that of Heaven; Heaven follows the
rule of Taou; and Taou follows no rule but his
own.”
T’HEEN, therefore, will not do to express “ God”;
135
for, by the showing of the Chinese themselves, it is
both “indefinite,” puh neng kiaou, ‘“ perishable ”?
and “ inferior” to a higher Being.
VIII.
II.—The second term proposed is the dreaded
SHIN.
_. This word, written in Chinese, ji is made up of
two characters ; viz., its own radical Jj, SHE (113th
el.), and the symbol SHIN, # (referred to class
102.) Itisa “ hwei-i,” or character “ with a com-
bined meaning.” |
In A, Remusat’s Chin. Gr. p. 17, and in four other
works in French, which follow him, the meaning of
this radical SHE is given simply as “ génie terrestre” ;
and in A. R.’s Gr. p. 85, it is further translated by
“to look into.” Dr. Morrison, in his Gr. p. 30, ren-
ders it by “ to admonish”; in his Dict. p. 5, by “ to
admonish, enjoin’; and at p. 769, he describes it as
derived “ from a horizontal line, representing Heaven,
and three perpendicular strokes, representing the light
coming down from the sun, moon, and stars; a sign
from Heaven; a declaration of the will of Heaven,”
etc. Mr. Williams (Easy Lessons, p. 17) follows Dr.
Morrison. But both Dr. Morrison and his followers
omit the important meaning given by the French
scholars, who found it, as we do ourselves, in Kang-
He’s Dictionary, which is the standard work of the
kind in Chinese, where it says (Pin-Dsi-hea, Ὁ. 18,
136
rad. “she.” col. 2), that the Ta tsung-pin (an officer
of the Le-poo, or “ tribunal of ceremonies”), presides
over T’heen-Shin, Jin-kwei, Tih-SHE-le, the rites con-
nected with the “ Shin of Heaven, the souls of men,
and the SHE of the Earth,” from whence SHE hwo
tso ke; “SHE” must mean a “ke,” or “Spirit”
(genii) of the Earth. ey
The other element of “SHIN” is its phonetic
“shin,” which means “to spread abroad,” “ to mul-
tiply again and again.” It affects, therefore, the
question very materially (placed as it was at first in
Dr. Morrison’s hands alone, as regards this country),
whether “ SHIN” means “an expansion of the Divine
will,” as he says; or, as it may also be taken to mean
(though he says it not), “ an expansion of Spirits or
Genii,” according to the meaning, suppressed in Dr.
Morrison’s Dictionary, but found in Kang-He’s. This
omission of Dr. Morrison’s is the more significant, as
he plainly says (to the probable surprise of his fol-
lowers in favour of “ SHIN”), at vol. i. p. 804 of his
Dictionary, art. “tsung,” that it appears from a, pas-
sage of the Shoo-king (which we shall examine pre-
sently), “that the ‘SHIN,’ or gods, denote a sort of
spirits like the Roman genii, or the Greek demons.”
For, in vol. iii. p. 772 of his Dictionary, Dr. Mor-
rison explains SHIN by “ from to extend, and signs
from Heaven.” Every evanescent, invisible, inseru-
table, spiritual, operating power or cause, is called
“sHin.” “A spirit; the human spirit; Divinity ;
God, in the sense of the heathen nations; Divine,
re
137
spiritual ; the animal spirit,’ etc. But not a word
about “ demons or genii,” as in vol. i. p. 804. This
is a singular omission, which, perhaps, we would not
have pointed out, were it not that so much stress is
laid on Dr. Morrison’s example and authority in the
matter of SHIN. Mr. Callery, however (Syst. Phon.
p- 104), gives as the only meaning of “ Shin,’—
« spiritus,” “ genius,” “idolum,” “ mysterium.” We
shall have occasion, in this matter, to recur to the
standard authority of Kang-He.
But the real meaning of SHIN can only be ga-
thered from classical authors. We will begin with
Confucius.
He seldom spoke of SHIN, as we have seen; and
as Mencius also says of him. We do not remember
meeting with it in the “ Ta-Hio.” . The first mention
Confucius makes of SHIN, is —
1) in the Chung-Yung (c. xvi. A. Rem. ed. p.
320), where he quotes the She-king thus: SHIN-che,
kih-sze, puh-ko t’hoo-sze, shin ko shay-sze. The proper
meaning of which is given in the Mandchou transla-
tion: Enduri-i ebudchirengge botutchi odchorako bade,
geouledetchi ombi-o, sehepi. ‘‘ Since we cannot reckon
upon (or perceive) the coming down of SHIN (Spirits),
shall we become better ware of it, if we treat them
negligently?” This passage is enlarged upon by
Confucius, :
2) in the same chapter of the Ch. Yung, when he
Says : KWEI-SHIN-che-te! ke shing ee-hoo! she-che, eul
fei kian! t’hing-che, eul fei wun! t’he wuh, eul puh-ko
138
wei! Yang yang hoo! Joo tsae ke shang; joo tsae ΚΘ.
tso-yew! ‘Oh! how great are the properties (te, ‘ vir-
tutes’) of the ‘Souls-and-Spirits’! (Shoo-king, iv. 8.)
You look and you cannot see them! You listen and
you cannot hear them! They form a part of the
essence of things, and cannot be separated from
them. Like a flood in amplitude, they are, as it
were above, as it were all around, on the right and
on the left !”
As “ΚΎΕΙ very frequently occurs in conjunction
with SHIN (KWEI-SHIN), let us at once ascertain its
meaning; for it will throw some light on that οὗ
SHIN. In the Le-ke (c. xix.), Tsai-go says to Con-
fucius : Wo wun KWEI-SHIN-che ming; puh chih ke
so wei: ‘‘ 1 have heard the name of KWEI-SHIN; but
I do not know what it is.” Confucius replied: Ee-yay-
chay, SHIN-che ching yay; P’hih-yay-chay, KWEI-che-
ching yay: ‘“ The breath is the (completion) mani-
festation of the SHIN or spirit (of man); P’hih, or the
faculty or sense of each organ,* is the manifestation
of the soul.” Ho KWEI yu SHIN, kiaou-che-chih yay:
‘The union of KWEI with SHIN (in one term) is the
highest subject of instruction.” This term has been
framed according to the nature of man’s spirit, in
* P*hih urh muh che tsung-ming: “ P’hih is, in the
ear and in the eye, that which hears and perceives.”
Phih jin Yin Shin: ‘ P’hih is man’s Yin (i. ¢., ob-
scure, inferior, female, principle), spirit.”
a
ma
ἫΣ
2
3
‘4
-.
;
;
Ε
;
189
order to give a rule or pattern to the people, and that
all men should stand in awe; and for that purpose
also have holy men instituted sacrifices to the “ Ee,”
and to the “ P*hih-ke.”
It does not appear from the above, that Confucius
himself had a very clear perception of the relative
difference, between Ee, Shin, P’hih, kwei, Ling, etc. We
may gather from it, however, that “Ee,” the breath,
is a sensible demonstration of the Shin (or spirit) of
man; and that P*hih is the sensitive faculty of man,
which, through his organs of sense, both impresses,
and is itself impressed by, his sentient soul “kwei.”
For besides that, there is the active and efficient
“Ling” (see Shang-Mang, i.). It will be sufficient
for our purpose, however, to adopt the definition of
“ KWEI-SHIN,” given by A. Remusat,* of “ ghosts,”
* In his edition of the Ch. Yung (Notices et Extr.
des Mos. p. 412), KWEI, “les manes des hommes,
Vhomme mort; étres surnaturels dépendant du prin-
cipe passif” (P’hih, as we have seen above, which is
the Yin-Shin of man). ‘‘ Les Mandchous les nomment
‘Hodou’ (this word is adopted in the Mandchou
New Testament for ‘devils’ and ‘unclean spirits’).
C’est en un certain sens, le mauvais génie, le génie
passif, mort,” etc.
“SHIN par opposition ἃ KWEI, l’homme vivant
son 4me? ce quil y a de spirituel, d’excellent dans
Univers. Les Mandchoun disent, ‘Endouri’ Le
140
“souls of departed men and spirits;” and we shall
render “kwei-Shin” (which is meant to express “ spi-
rits” in general, of the dead and of the living world),
by “ Souls-and-Spirits.”
3) ibid. (c. xxix.). “A good prince,” says Con-
fucius, “regulates himself upon Heaven and Earth, 4
and che shoo KWEI-SHIN eul wo i; chi T’heen-yay”:. a
“while he approves himself to the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits,’ |
nothing doubting; and learns to know Heaven.”
4) ibid. (c. xxiv.). “A perfect man can even “3
Dict. Mandchou explique ce mot de la maniére sui-
vante :—
* An-i gengiyen ferguetchoun-be, Endouri sembi. WNi-
yalma gingulembime saburako tundchirako tchoktehen-de
arboun-be doursoukileme arafi touborongge-be kemou
Endouri sembi.”
“La partie surnaturelle et lumineuse du Yang (le
principe actif et vivant) se nomme Endouri. On ap-
pelle généralement Hndouri tous ces étres que les
hommes adorent sans les voir ni les entendre, et a la
place desquels ils mettent, pour leur sacrifier, une
image qui les représente,” etc.
“Les deux mots réunis, KWEI-SHIW en Mandchou
Endouri-hodou, expriment dans le langage philoso-
phique des lettrés, l’action des deux principes, leur
force inhérente, leur vertu efficace.” And he adds:—
“Rien de plus obscur que ce qui est dit des ‘ KWEI-
SHIN’ dans les livres Chinois,” etc.
141]
foresee good and evil; and in this respect he is
joo SHIN like Shin (the Spirits).”
5) Shang-Lun (book ii. 1.12). Confucius says:
tse joo tsae! tse SHIN, joo SHIN tsae! ‘‘ Worship as
if it were a reality! Worship Shin (the Spirits) as if
SHIN were present”?! (See above, p. 14.)
6) Hea-Lun (book iv. 1, 34). The Loi says:
taou eul yu shang-hea, SHIN KE: “Pray ye to above
and below; to the Spirits of the air, and to those of
the earth.” (See also Shoo-King, iii. 3; iv. 5; v. 1;
i, 4.)
7) Lao-tsze (Tao-te-k. booki. c. 6) says: koo-SHIN
puh sze: “The Shin (Spirits) of the valley do not
die.” If “Shin” can be taken here in the singular,
it is meant. for “ Taou,” ὁ Aédyos.
8) ibid. (c. xxix.). “Shin” may be taken adjec-
tively in ‘’heen-hea, SHIN k’he. The empire is
(either, a “divine vase,” or) an object to be wrought
out by (the Spirits) “Shin”; a “divine thing.”
9) ibid. (c. xxxix.). SHIN tih yih i ling; shing wo
i ling, tsian k’hung hee: “The Spirits obtain unity
through their ding) or ‘spiritual efficacy’? If Spirits
had not that ‘ Ling,’ they would risk to perish.”
10) ibid. (c. lx.). When the Emperor rules
according to the Taou, ke SHIN puh Shin; fei ke SHIN
puh Shin; ke KWEI puh shang jin: “The Spirits do
not exert their spiritual power; it is not that the
Spirits are inactive; but it is because (Souls of the
departed) evil Spirits do not hurt men.”
11) In the Shoo-king (book i. c. 1), Shun (n.c.
142
2356) is stated to have offered a sacrifice, first,
yu SHANG TE, to “SuHana-Tr;” next to “Iuh-tsung,”
the six objects of worship (the seasons, heat and cold,
the sun, the moon, the stars and drought); he then
turned devoutly towards the hills and the rivers; and
last of all, “peen yu k’*heun SHIN” “ he looked all
round on the host of Spirits” (Shin).
12) ibid. (c. 2). Speaking about music, Shun
says; then, SHIN jin iho: “the Spirits and men are
in harmony together.” | :
13) ibid. (c. 3). Yu is said to have been a man,
shing nae SHIN, “holy and divine” (or, “ spiritual”).
θεῖος καὶ δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ.
14) ibid. (ibid.). Yu said that even, KWEI-SHIN
kee. ‘ The ‘ Souls-and-Spirits’ consented.”
15) ibid. (ibid.). “Shin tsung,” “ divine ancestor ;”
and, “sincerity,” han SHIN “moves the Spirits.”
16) ibid. (book iii. 3). T’ang says, he had referred
a grave matter to Shang-T’heen SHIN-how, “the divine
officer (or power) of High Heayen,” or “ officer of
‘Sun’ of High-Heaven.” Unless “ Shin-how” mean
“the Earth,” as Dr. Medhurst (1. c.) thinks.
17) ibid. (book iii. 7). E-yun says: KWEI-SHIN
wo chang heang, heang yu k’hih she; “ The ‘ Souls-
and-Spirits’ do not always accept an offering made to
them; they only accept it from sufficiently sincere
people.” ε ΘΝ
18) ibid. (book iii. 8). Héa is said to have been,
man SHIN ngo ming, “remiss towards the Spirits, and
cruel towards the people.” Consequently, Hwang-
ΤΕΣ
ΟῚ
ore
148
Theen, looked for some one else, to set him to’ be
SHIN-CHOO chief (or Lord) over the (worship of )
Spirits (or gods).
19) ibid. (book iii. 13). When a man has con-
tracted defilement, it is difficult for him, sze SHIN,
“to serve the Spirits.”
20) ibid. (book vy. 7). The kings of Chow alone did
teen SHIN T’HEEN, “institute the worship of divine
Heaven.” |
21) In the Kan-ing-Pien (c. i.) we read: she i
T’heen-Tih yew sze kwo-che SHIN, that there are in
Heaven and on Earth, Spirits who (Mandch. bait-
chara, “search out”) look after the transgressions of
men. There is also—
22) SHIN-KIUN tsae jin-too-shang “the Prince of
Spirits,” who is placed over the head of men; who
writes in a book all their sins, etc.
23) There are also san SHE-SHIN tsae jin-shen
chung; ‘the three Spirits of the corpse, placed in the
interior of man (viz. the head, the stomach, and the
intestines), who ascend to Heaven when a man dies, in
order to testify against him. And the last day of the
lunar month, TSA-SHIN ju yan; ‘“‘the Spirit of the
hearth” (comp. “ Lares, and Penates’’), the “ fami-
liar Spirit does the same.” Among the sins of men
reported on high by those Spirits (Shin) are, ma
SHIN ch’hing tsae, “ to revile the Spirits, and yet to
be satisfied one is upright”; and yin SHIN-MING, to
call down the brightness of the Spirits on one’s own
wicked conduct.
144
24) ibid. (ad fin.). We read: “If your heart
conceive a good thought, ere you have acted upon it;
KEIH-SHIN i suy, the Spirits of happiness follow
you.” If, on the other hand, your heart’ conceive
evil, although that evil remain as yet undone,
HEUNG-SHIN i suy che, (Mand. ehe Enduri takhambi,)
“evil Spirits of destruction press hard upon tte
thought.”
25) In the Le-Ke, c. i. we read: “ Taou tsze tse ke
kung keih KWEI-SHIN, fei le; puh-ching, puh-chwang.”
“without rites, there can be nothing either sincere or
solemn in the prayers, the offerings, the sacrifices,
or the oblations made to the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits.’ ”
A hint that may be useful to some that are not Chi-
nese.
26) ibid., c. viii. “ Le pei pen ju T’heen, heaou ju Tih;
lee ju KWEI-SHIN,” etc. “Rites (or duties) own
their origin from Heaven, and they have their appli-
cation upon earth; they relate to the ‘ Souls-and-
Spirits,’ ” ete.
27. ibid. The holy man (or excellent prince) iden-
tifies himself with Heaven and Earth, “ ping ju KWEI-
SHIN, i chi king yay”; and ‘ with the ‘ Souls-and-
Spirits,’ in order to govern properly.”
28) ibid. “Jin-chay, ke T’heen-Tih-che, Yin-Yang-cho
keaou, KWEI-SHIN-che hwuy,” etc. “ As regards man,
his existence results from the virtue of Heaven and
Earth ; from the combination of ‘ Yin” (principle of
obscurity and decay), and ‘ Yang’ (principle of light
and life); and from the blending of ‘kwei’ (the
145
zs ghost of a dead man, manes) and ‘SHIN? (the Spirit
of that same man, when alive),” ete.
29) ibid. When an excellent prince wishes to set
the example to his people, he ought, among other
things, “ KWEI-SHIN i wei thoo,” “ to make the Spi-
rits his companions.” Whereby “sze ko show yay”;
“his acts will endure.”
30) ibid. The ancient kings fearing lest sacred
rites should not become prevalent in the empire, “ koo
tse TE ju keaou, so-i ching T’heen-le yay,” ‘offered a
sacrifice to SHANG-Tr on open commons, in order to
establish the power of Heaven” ;—then to the tutelary
god of the empire;—next to their ancestors ;—and
lastly, “ju shan ch’huen, so-i ping KWEI-SHIN,” to the
hills and to the rivers, “so as to (worship) conciliate
the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits.’ ”
Therefore—
31) ibid. “Le-hing ju keaou eul pe SHIN show
ehih yan,” ‘‘ by public worship in the open coun-
try, the Spirits (gods) receive the homage due to
them.”
32) “Foo-le peih pen ju Ta-yih; fan eul wei T’heen-
Tih” “Those rites assuredly, derive their origin
from the Ta-yih (the great principle of Unity). They
are apportioned to Heaven and to the Earth”; they
‘vary according to the seasons; and lastly, “een ΘᾺ]
* “wei KWEI-SHIN,” “ They undergo gradual modifica-
tions for the ‘ Souls-and-Spirits.’ ”
33) When the empire is in harmony, then among
other things, “‘sze KWEI-SHIN-che ch’hang yay,” “ the
11 :
146
worship (or things) relating to the ‘Souls-and-Spirits’
continues uninterrupted.”
34) ibid. c. ix., The wise man is at peace with
himself and with others, and “ KWEI-SHIN heang te,”
the Souls-and-Spirits feast on his virtue.”
35) ibid. ibid. The rites must, “chun ju kwei-
SHIN,” “accord with the Souls-and-Spirits.”
36) “Shay tseih shan ch’huen che sze KWEI-SHIN-
che tse le yay.” “ Rites consist in the things relating
to the tutelary god, to the god of harvest, to the hills,
to the rivers, and to the worship of the Souls-and-
Spirits.” ;
37) “Shay so-i SHIN-Tih yay.’ ‘“ The worship of
the tutelary god tends to connect the earth with the
Spirits.”
38) The offerings made in sacred vessels, consist
of the produce of the soil, “so-i keaou ju SHIN-MING
che e yay,” “so as to place yourself on good terms with
the Spirits” or “ divine brightness”; and “so-i keaou
ju SHIN-MING chay, puh ko tung ju so gan see che shin
yay,” “to hold intercourse with the Spirits, or ‘di-
vine brightness,’ is very different from seeking one’s
own ease and treating them negligently.”
39) ibid. ibid. The ox to be offered to Suane-Tx,
is to undergo a certain process of purification ; but
any ox may do for an offering to deceased ancestors ;
thereby, “pee sze T’HEEN-SHIN yu jin-kwei yay,”
“making a difference between rites relating to the
‘ spirits,’ (gods, or deities) of Heaven and the ‘souls’
of men.”
147
ες 40) ibid. c. xvi. “ Music,” says the Le-ke, “ tends
to calm the mind, and then things go on easy; that
tends to long duration,” or, (to the raising of one’s
mind upwards); “keaou tseih T’heen; T’heen tseih
SHIN; T’heen tseih puh yen eul sin; SHIN tseih puh
noo Θὰ] weih,” “and that leads to Heaven; then
Heaven to (Shin) the gods. Though Heaven speak
not, yet men believe in it; and though (Shin) the
gods be not angry, they are nevertheless revered.”
41) ibid. c. xx., “king tsin jan how ko-i sze SHIN-
ming sse tse-che-taou yay.” ‘“‘ When veneration is com-
plete, then a man may do service to the brightness of
(Shin) the gods; such is the rule of sacrifices.”
42) ibid. ib. “ The wise man practises abstinence
three or seven days; for the purpose of collecting his
thoughts. It is the road to the brightest virtue.”
“Jan how ke-i keaou ju SHIN-MING yay.” “ When
aman is thus prepared, he may hold intercourse
with the brightness of the (Shin) gods.”
43) ibid. 6. xxvi., Siao-ia says: “ Do your duty,
appoint fit men to their respective offices,” and, “ She
yu SHIN-che shing-che,” “that will make the gods hear
you, and crown you with blessings,” etc.
So far, the examples in “ Koo-wén,” drawn from
ancient classics within our reach. We will now see
what meaning “ Suin” has in more modern classical
literature ; as well as in colloquial intercourse among
educated men.
The only book of the kind in our possession is
the “* Hwa-tseen,” written by one of the Thsai-tsze,
148
and reckoned, in China, a master-piece of its kind.
‘“Snin” occurs in it twenty-seven times; and is used
also, we expect, in its actual acceptation in pure
Chinese. | 3
44) In Hwa-tseen (p. 30, 1. 8, ed. P. P. Thoms)
we read: “tso seaou SHIN-NIU wang ho sung?”
“ Whither has gone the divine maid of yester-eve ?”
45) ibid. p. 41, 1. 8, Same expression. Compare
it with —
46) ibid. p. 62, 1. 7, where that. person, Yaou-seen,
is said to be, “ T’heen-shang niu,” “a daughter fostered
by Heaven” (“ θεῶν παίδευμα". --“ Οὐρανοῦ θυγάτηρ". -
“duhitar DIVA:”); and with the Persian sj usp
—“born of a Pari” for, a “beautiful woman.” This
corresponds with “ SHIN-SEEN” in —
47) ibid. p. 42,1. 13, “ Fung-kwang puh jang SHIN-
SEEN foo.” That hill “ will not yield, in freshness
and beauty, to the abode of the (Shin-seen) Genii of
the hills”—(who are not considered as “ gods.” See
also, p. 79, 1.2). Or, this passage may be construed
differently if ““Shin-seen” is made, as in —
48) p. 62, 1. 16; and p. 79, 1. 16, to apply to
Yaou-seen;” and to mean “a fairy;” heard of yet
unseen, in Persia: for even Sadi says in a parallel
“passage. “Among men the like of thee G52 Ogi ~ Sve
poss perhaps never did exist. But I have not seen
a Pari.” |
- 49) ibid. p. 47,1. 4, ““ HWA-SHIN, Seng sze 186
heen-log.” “ The. god of flowers produces colours to
149
gratify (or benefit) virtuous youths.” (See also the
same expression at p. 170, 1. 14; and p. 176, 1.14.) °
| 50) ibid. p. 108, 1. 14, “She chang Phung seay kaou
chi SHIN.” Leang “wrote a vow of constancy, and
made it known to the gods.” (See p. 109, I. 12; and
pe 125.:19}. 4
51) ibid. Ὁ. 110, 1. 5, Three sticks of fragrant wood
were offered to “ YUE-SHIN,” “the goddess of wie
Moon” (and p. 111, 1. 10).
52) ibid. p. 118, 1.14, “SHIN-TSEEN”” “ The
god of the tablet.”
53) ibid. p. 223, 1. 2, “Sse wang heu-k’*hung SHIN-
kwei chi’ “ He told the gods -(Souls-and-Spirits) ‘of
the four quarters of Heaven.” (See also p. 242, 12,
where we read, “ kwei-Shin,” ‘‘ Souls-and-Spirits.” )
54) ibid. p. 124, 1. 8, “ Paou chung tseen ch’hing mo
ch’hang SHIN.” ““ Promise again, ere you start, not
(to keep up) sorrowful spirits.” And p. 133, 1. 1,
“ Shang-SHIN,” “ wounded spirits.”
55) ibid. p. 156, 1. 6, “Na te sin SHIN seih wen?”
“‘ Where shall I find ‘heart-spirits’ to follow my stu-
dies ?”—* Sang sin-SHIN,” “ mournful heart-spirits.”
(See p. 146, 1. 4; and p. 143, 1. 5.)
56) ibid. p, 152, 1. 12, “ Yen meen pei-gae ke sang-
SHIN.” “ She veiled her face, and from grief began
to be in mournful spirits.” (See also p. 172, 1. 14;
and p. 194, 1. 12.) :
57) ibid. p. 186, 1. 7, Yaou-seen while listening
to what occurred, “SHIN-hwan sang,” “ her whole
spirits grew (mournful) sad.”
150
58) In the Tching-yen tso-yaou, p. 3, 1. 5, we read:
“Pa chay shen kin-kwuh; hwo-tung, hwo-tung: Jin
yeou yew tsing-SHIN.” ‘“ Take this body of bone and
muscle ; exercise it well, exercise it well; that is the
way for a man to get good spirits.”
59) Premare (Not. Ling. Sin. p. 189) quotes the
proverb : “Jin laou wo neng: SHIN laou wo ling.” “A
man grown old has no power ; a spirit grown old has
no spiritual efficacy,”—or “ active energy.” This
proverb is illustrated in a characteristic dialogue,
in — |
60) A..Gongalvez, Arte China, p. 299, seg., where
we read of “ MUH-SHIN,” “the spirits of the door” of
the temple; and that the “MEAOU-SHIN mo yew
ling,” “the (Temple-Spirit) idol had no soul,” (did no
wonders) and so says the interlocutor, “I would not
go there again”; and alittle further, ““SHIN-choo pae-
tsze leay tih ling-wei, SHIN-wei, shi-mo pae-shwo’’?
“What is the meaning of this inscription, ‘the seat
of the soul, the seat of the Spirit, which is on the
tablet of the Ruling Spirit.’” (See also p. 290,
“king-tae-SHIN,” “to honour the (Shin) god of
wealth,” etc.
The above quotations, all taken from classical
or approved authors, show, generally, that the literal
meaning of SHIN is—
a) “An expansion” of “she,” which denotes,
evidently, not so much “light from Heaven,” ete.
(according to Dr. Morrison’s definition), as “ genii”
151
or ‘demons,’ according to his own opinion (p. 804,
vol. i. of his Dict.), and to Kang-he’s Dictionary.
6) That “Sun,” like 4 “genii” in Arabic, is a
“collective noun,” which, when alone, and without a
numerical affix to determine its number (like “ one,”
“two,” etc.), does not imply less than an “ indefinite
number” ;—sometimes a “multitude spread every-
where,” and ‘“ innumerable.”
6) That “Surin” never occurs in the Chinese
classics with such a numerical affix;—that conse-
quently it never means “ one SHIN.”
d) That “ Sain” (when coupled with “kwei,” “ the
souls of the departed”) is taken for “An-i gengiyen
fergouetchoun-be,” “‘the supernatural and bright por-
tion of the Yang principle ”—“ Spirits,” what there is
of “ good and spiritual” in the world.
6) That even in the best acceptation, “ Sain” is
sometimes good and sometimes bad ;
jf) sometimes male or female ;—and that those
Spirits are—
g) liable to lose their spiritual efficacy, “ Ling.”
h) That those Spirits (Shin) hold an inferior posi-
tion in the scale of deities ;
_ 4) That some of them are not considered as
“ gods.”
j) Lastly, that Sum is, mere “ animal Spirits.”
152
We must therefore conclude, that the impression
made by the term “SHIN” upon the mind of an
educated Chinese, who looks. upon most of the above-
quoted classics as inspired, must be, like the term
itself, vague and indefinite. It is hardly one Spirit
out of k’heang Shin, a host of other Spirits his fel-
lows ;—an inferior deity of some sort or other ;—but it
may be the whole host itself, an aggregate of inferior
deities ;—apparently something; and, in fact, nothing.
There is no one point whereupon to rest or fix the
mind; and if you try and clench “ one Spirit,” SHIN,
in thought, for aught you know, he may, as we have
seen, turn out an old one, who has lost his life and
his intelligence! While, to the uneducated, who form
by far the greater portion of a people, whose religion
consists almost altogether in rites and ceremonies,
SHIN conveys no higher or more elevated idea than
that of a deformed idol; with a licentious, or, at best,
an unmeaning worship. 7
This ill-defined impression left on . the an by the
term SHIN, is owing, not only to the vagueness of
the idea conveyed by that term, but also, and in a
great degree, to the fact, that in classical Chinese
there is neither article to define, nor case to deter-
mine, nor gender to qualify, nor any sign of number
to limit a term, which may often be read either as
a collective, singular or plural noun, an adjective, a
verb, or even a particle.
Under these circumstances inherent in the Chinese
language, it must strike every one as of the highest
Se
- importanee that, in order to express “ Gop” in Chi-
nese, we should find a term, which, having always
been taken in one sense only, is liable neither to an
ambiguous meaning, nor to be practically misapplied
by the people. We confess ourselves, therefore, at a
loss to understand how, in the face of even the few
examples we have adduced, there can still exist so
great a difference of opinion on the subject; if, as the
writer of “ Shin v. Shang-Te” asserts, the advocates
of SHIN “have gone thoroughly into the question,”
by inquiring into the meaning of the original terms;
and “ have rightly understood it,” by searching the
Chinese classics for an equivalent, with unprejudiced
minds. But, as Pindar says (Ol: viii.),— .
Ὀρθᾷ διακρίνειν φρενὶ, μὴ παρὰ καιρὸν,
ΖΔυσπαλές-.---
ΙΧ.
We leave the candid reader to draw his own con-
élusion from the above authorities, which are im-
partially given. For our own part, having seen no
other writing on the subject than the pamphlet in
question, we can only speculate as to the considera-
tions which have led the advocates of “ Sum” to enter
into so close a covenant with that term.
If one of their reasons is, first—that “ Sun” being
a “ generie term,” which in Chinese, is in a way,
applied to “ all gods,” it is therefore appropriate and
fit to express Exrontm and Θεός, they seem to over-
154
look the fact, that @ecoé” are neither Θεός nor 6 Θεός, ς
and that because Ζεύς is called “6 πρῶτος δαίμων," ib
does not follow that δαίμων is Ζεύς. Or that, because
Κρόνος is called Θεός, Θεός is for that reason Κρόνος
also. Nor yet that likewise, because “ Ba’al-zebub” is
ἢν ΤΌΝ (Elohim) the God of Ekron,” BYIDS
“Elohim” is therefore a fit name for “Gop.” For
in this case it is exactly the reverse: the name of
“the true Gop” alone, ELonim, was lowered from His
“excellent greatness,” and applied to “an idol”; and
it was not the name of the “idol” that was raised to
mean “the true Gop.” This, however, is precisely
what must take place in China, and in every other
heathen land. Suzy, then, is not an appropriate
term for Gop, because it sometimes means ‘a god.”
For, as we shall presently see, ‘‘ Suin” is, perhaps,
“ δαίμων, OF “ τὸ δαιμόνιον," and as “ δαίμων" it may
sometimes apply to one who is “ Θεός, like Suane=
ΤΕ : but who would say that for all that, Θεός and
δαίμων are one?
It cannot be, secondly—that the idea of plurality
inherent in the collective noun Su (Spirits) can
correspond to the same idea as implied in the plural
“ ELoum.” We have already seen that this plural is
only a mark of dignity, or of profound respect for that
dignity. For the sake of argument, however, let it be
granted that it implies “ plurality.” Of what kind?—
Not, assuredly, the necessary doctrine of the Trinity,
which cannot be gathered from “ Exon” alone; if
so, then, it can be no doctrine of any practical import-
155
. ance. The “plural” implied or expressed in Etoum,
cannot be of “two”; since there is a “dual” in
Hebrew to express that number. But it may mean
“any number”; and therefore it proves too much.
For three is the number to be established. Since
then, the number three cannot be determined from
“Eronm,” this “plural” form if taken to imply
“multitude” and not “respect” only, may (accord-
ing to Aben-Ezra, Rabbi ὃ. Jarchi, the Chaldee
Paraphrase, the Arabic, and the Samaritan versions)
often mean “Ἢ Angels,” pndy ‘J2—“ sons of God,”
the Host of the Heavenly ministers of God’s will
around His throne on high. (See R. 8. Jarchi on
Gen. i. 26.)
If therefore “‘ Sutn” is used for ““ Etontm,” because
SHIN implies “a plurality,” like Exonm, what does it
then mean, for a Chinese who, ¢.g., reads in the Bible,
“ THEEN-SHIN,” “ The God of Heaven”? It cannot
possibly convey to him any higher or more distinct
idea than those very words do in, 6. g., Le-ke (ce.
Xvi.), where T7HEEN tsei SHIN applies to the Deity
in Heaven, 2. ¢., to SHANG-TE, surrounded as he is by
his ministers and their numerous attendants. Now,
do the advocates of “ Sumy,” in worshipping “ Gop,”
include the ““ Heavenly Host” in their worship? If
not, why do they lead the Chinese to do it? For it
is, we see, inevitable.
So little, in point of fact, does “" Sam” express
‘“‘ Exonm” in this case, that being divested of its
primary and classical collective sense of “ Spirits” by
. 1586
the translators who advocate ‘“Suin,” in order to
make it mean One Spirit only, whenever Exonm
governs a verb in the plural (as in Gen. i. 26),
‘“‘ Sain” must be qualified by adjuncts, which only
add to the perplexity of its meaning. While, in other
places, where Exoumm in the original is also construed
with a plural verb (as, 6. g., Gen. xx. 13; xxxy. 7,
etc.), the plural of the original is left out altogether
in the Chinese translation; and both Sax and its
verb are then intended to remain in the singular! _
And, thirdly,—if it be alleged that, since Sum
means “ Spirits,” and “God is a Spirit,” Sum is
therefore an appropriate term for ‘‘ God,” that ap-
pears to us, either begging the question, or blinking
it altogether. Since it is evident that the reason that
ἐς God is a Spirit,” is also the very reason why Sain,
‘t Spirits,” should ot be chosen to render “ Gop”
into Chinese.
For, although we believe, as taught by our Saviour
Himself, whose words ‘“‘ were Spirit and Life,” that
“Gop Is A Spirit,” whom we humbly*seek to “serve
in spirit and in truth,” while we ‘“ walk not after the
flesh but after the Spirit,” and ‘through the Spirit”
endeavour “ to mortify the deeds of the body;” yet
‘we cannot overlook the fact that, as Gop was to be
worshipped by mortal men of limited minds, He, in
mercy to their infirmity, did not introduce Himself
to them as ‘a Spirit,” indefinite and. inappreciable,
which no human mind can rightly understand or
fully grasp.
157
- But He made Himself known to His people, by
speaking of Himself, at first, as of “a Person,” ὑπό-
στασις, figuratively “ endowed” with a “Spirit” ema-
nating from Him ; and with active energies compared
to those of men. Without some such definite “ out-
line” or “ idea” of Gop, His own people even, much
less others, could not have continued faithful to Him.
For we find that, even immediately after having
trembled at His voice speaking from Sinai, they could
not abide forty days without some fresh token of His
presence among them; and so they bade Aaron make
them “ gods” whom they might see, and who would
** ρῸ before them.”
Gop, then, out of compassion to men, makes Him-
self known to them in characters which address
themselves at once to the mind, and make it fast;
although that same mind may not be able to under-
stand fully the spiritual nature of Him whose attri-
butes, however, it embraces at once.
For instance, we readily seize the meaning of God’s
words, when He introduces Himself as “ our Father” .
—*T am thy Father”—*“ the Father of the spirits of
all flesh;”—as “ king”—‘“a king of old”—‘ the
Lord is king! and reigns over His people ;’—-as
Master, to whom alone “we stand or fall;”—as a
Judge, “who shall judge the righteous and the
wicked ;”—as a mighty man of war—dpes—‘‘ who
shall prevail against: his enemies ;”’—as a ‘“ defender”
—a “sure refuge”’—a “strength to the poor;”—a
~efuge from the storm ;—a ‘“ shadow from the heat ;’
158
as the Father of the fatherless;—as one who hears
all things; who sees all things;—who points with
His finger, and commands by the word of His mouth;
—who makes the clouds His chariot ;—whose throne
is in Heaven, “ His holy habitation : and whose feet
rest upon the earth;—who is “ high and lofty,” yet
“ pardoning and gracious;’—for “ He dwelleth with
him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, and that
trembleth at His word.” All those are expressions
of “ personal,’ and not of exclusively “ spiritual”
attributes. They are, for that reason, admitted and
seized at once; and thus they are able to sway the
mind, and to hold the heart captive. It is evident
that it would not be the case if a “ Spirit,” and
“ spiritual” attributes only, and not “a person,” were
to be thought of.
So uniform is God’s dealing with men, in this re-
spect, that it was not until four thousand years after
He had first created man, that “‘ Gop manifest in the
flesh” taught men in plain terms that ‘“ Gop is a
Spreit.” Till then, and even after that time, ‘ The
Spirit,” though He be Gop, is yet mentioned as “ of”
Him; as an emanation from Him, and not as Him-
self. In the very outset, and after it had been de-
clared that “ Gop had created the Heavens and the
Earth,” we further read, that the “Spirit of Gop
moved upon the face of the waters;” not “ Gon,”
though that Spirit was Gop, but His Spirit. “ Whi-
ther shall I go from Thy Spirit?” says the Psalmist.
“ The Spirit of Gop hath made me,” says Job, “ and
159
the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.”
The “ Spirit of Gop dwelleth in you,” says St. Paul;
“ orieve not the Holy Spirit of Gop;”—‘ for the
Spirit of Gop resteth on you,” etc.
How can all those attributes be assigned to Sum,
which to a Chinese conveys no other idea than that
of hardly one inferior “ Spirit”—may be, decrepit,
and bereft of intelligence ? one out of a multitude of
other Spirits, his equals, but, rather that multitude
itself,—without creating endless confusion in his al-
ready bewildered mind? How, for instance, can we
be understood, when speaking of the hands, the feet,
' the eyes, the mouth of Sutn, exeept it be of Sun
as an “idol of wood or stone?” And how shall we
explain (if we understand it ourselves), what the
“Spirit” of “ The Spirit” (Sumy) can possibly mean?
True, we might try the experiment of using “ Ling,”
for the “‘ Spirit inhabiting the other,” as Dr. Morri-
son has done; and this would seem borne out by the
passage of Lao-tsze above quoted. But, at that very
place, Lao-tsze implies that the “Sum” Spirit may
be deprived of “ Ling,” his “ Spirit;” and then either
lose his unity (Lao-tsze 1. ¢.), or, as it is commonly
said in China, become “ effete from old age!” What
a substitute for the name of our Gop, the Micury,
the Most-Hieu, the Krye or Grory, who inhabits
eternity, and to whose “ kingdom there shall be no
end!” And what impression of these upholding
truths can a Chinese receive through such a medium
as SHIN?
160
The fault, it must be seen, lies in the term Sumy
itself; between which term, and the personal attri-
butes assigned to it, there is little or no congruity.
For the most impressive and endearing prerogatives
of God in Holy Scripture could never have been. pre-
dicated of a “Spirit” only, without risk of either
creating great confusion of ideas, or, perhaps, im-
parting no idea at all. And it is not, let us remem-
ber, by mere coincidence that the ‘‘ God.” revealed
in the Bible is a “personal” God. It was. so willed
by Him, not only out of condescension towards. us,
but also as a preparation for the coming “in person”
of the ‘ WonpERFUL, CounsELLER, Tue Micuty Gon,
Tue Everiastineg Fatuer, Toe Prince or PEace;”
“who is the image of the invisible GOD ;”—“ the
express image of HIS PERSON ;” and in whom the
mystery was to be solved of “‘ God manifest. in the
flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached
to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
into Glory.”
So patent, indeed, is the fact, that Gop being a
εἰ ἘΡΕΡΔΟΝ God,” is not to be considered abstractedly
‘a Spirit only;” that the names by which He is
walled in’ the world in general, and in the ancient
versions of Scripture in particular, are all expressive
of “power,” “ might,” “ excellence,” or of “ glory,”
but never of “ Spiritual” essence alone.
Gop is called in Hebrew by, Et, the “ Mighty;” or
ody, the “ awful God.” Why, then, since “ God
is a Spirit,” was He not called M197, “ The Spirit”
aaa
(as in Hos. ix. 7), as patronymic for “ the Spirits of
all flesh,” of which He is “ Father”?
In Chaldee and in Syriac, Gop is sometimes called
ἈΕΟΠΊ, “the object of fear,” (as in Hebrew also, M2,
ες terror,”) why not δ 7), “ The Spirit”? .
Τὴ Samaritan He is known as 42m, “the Valiant
one,” why not as x«mra, “ The Spirit”?
In Arabic, Gop is spoken of in the Bible as
GLO! jo! all,* “Gop the Mighty, the Sufficient” ;
why not as (wi! οἷ, “the Father of Spirits or of
Souls” ? ih )
* Borhan-ed-deen says of the term all, “Gop,”
that itis oS) Cots oll pul, “a name of the
Essence which does of necessity exist.” In this
sense, it would seem to answer to MM’. Among the
Arabs, Gop has ninety-nine names; on which Shahab-
ed-deen Abulabas remarks that they are 4] wisi
aN) gay lal SI pay mud ρων ad “divided
into three classes.” The first class relates to the
“ Essence” of God; and is contained in ait, ( El-
Inuan,” etc. (See H. Relandi, de R. Moham. p.
6, 19, and Coran Sur. xvi. 109, \scol on which see
the note in Maracci’s edition, Shia SV Ngcotl 4! alt,
where it is stated that the Arabs add a hundredth
name to the above ninety-nine; namely, pet rie
“the Greatest Name”; is it WENN DY τὸ τετρωγράμ-
ματον, M1?)
12
162
In Ethiopic the name for God, A*\n “ Amlak,” is,
as we have seen, derived from “rule and govern-
ment”; for God is, as Seberianus writes (Homil. on”
Faith), U's ἴεν Ὧι £ Xp diay frun Cuwqgurnp ng "h
Tnfiss ung juin_us gure gts “επί » bk ns *h Sut
ΓΟ ΟΣ] κεν lense τ ἐμέκ ει + “the one
only and true King, neither foremost among others
like Him; nor in appearance more noble among ~
equals,’—-why was He not called in Ethiopic, e447
“ Manfas,” “ The Spirit”? or, as in the book of
Enoch, ΛΊΗΝ: σφ: “ Yg’zia Manafyst,” “ the
Lord of the Spirits?”
In the Armenian version God is called ULassnrw’-,
ἐς Asdwadz”—probably “ Astvat” (Sansc. “ San”), a
term brought from the southern plains of Ariyana,
and which in Zend, means “ the existing Being,
Jehovah” (see Yacna Not. p. 11). Why was He not
called ¢nqgf, “ Hoki,’ Spirit; a term for the third
person of His Most Holy Triune Essence ?
The Georgian, “ Ghmerth,” Ghut, or “ Ghuti,” is, as
we have seen, the wide-spread name for God, tas,
“ khuda,” self-existing (comp. the Zend “ qad’hata,”
“ uncreated, self-existing”) from whence is probably
“ Guth,”* adopted by Ulphilas in his version. Why,
* “Guth,” “ God,” is more likely to come from
“ Khuda,” “ Ghut,” and ‘ Qadata,’ than from
“Odin,” “ Wod,” or ‘‘ Wadda”: (Buddha), mentioned
by Abulfeda, as worshipped by Noah’s countrymen :
163
then, was not God called in Georgian “ Souli,” (Soul),
“ Spirit,” and in Gothic, ‘“ Ahnia,” also “ Spirit?”
especially since Bhagavan, says of himself :—
Aham Atma sarvab’hutashayast’hita: |
“T am the Spirit (Atma, in Gothic, “ Ahma”)
dwelling in the bodies of all beings.” (Comp. “ SHIN
?he-wuh”—* SHIN,” that enters into the essence of
things. Ch.-Yung. c. xvi.)
The word chosen to render God in the Coptic
version is, as we have seen, ot, the ancient nrp, or
ne, with the article n or ,—still graven deep on
the granite pillars*erected in memory of Rameses-
Mei-Amoun, at Thebes. Why was not the word miqi,
“breath,” or “ Spirit,” rather adopted to render
“God,” since we read in Coptic, that all Scripture
is nuiqi NTe ht, “ the breath,” or “ inspiration of
God”?
The Slavonian version has “ Bogh,” originally,
perhaps, like Eronm, meaning “a worshipful Being ;”
why was not the word “ Duch,” “ Spirit,” adopted
instead ?
Lastly, we have seen that Θεός has in itself no-
thing in common with “ Spirit,” since it first meant
the “Sun,” or “ Heaven;”* how then, is it, that it
lay yd, AGI yds J NYGy—(Hist. ante Isl. p.
14, ed. Fl.) See above, p. 52.
* The origin of Θεός -- Ζεύς, from the root Div,
Div-s, or DIv,—“ Brilliancy,” ‘ Sun,” and “ Hea-
164
was adopted to express “ God,” and that Πνεῦμα, or
rather Aaiwov, was not used in its place? The reason
is obvious. Because a knowledge of the true God
was to be imparted through ideas intelligible to men
of simple minds; for “to the poor the Gospel is
preached.” They never could hold only by the in-
tellectual worship of a “ Spirit” as “‘ Spirit only,”
which they could not possibly understand, apart from
his “ personal attributes;” nor could they pledge
their allegiance to any but to a “ personal God.”
Nay, we see that even Plato (De Leg. L. x.), after
having discoursed to the admiration of all, on the
ἐς παντοῖα Σοφία καὶ Νοῦς," inseparable from the “ψυχὴ
τοῦ κόσμου" in God, seeks in Heaven One to whom he
may assign that divine Soul. Then, turning his eyes
from the Sun, and his hope from his indefinite and _
uncertain Θεός and Θεοί, he fixes upon his own per-
sonal God, and bows at last to the ruling wisdom,
mind, and soul, of Ζεὺς βασιλεύς.
ven,”—is further shown by the fact of Ζεύς being
pronounced either Zyus (diu-s), or, as in Modern
Greek Zevs (div-s); acc. either Ζεύν, Θεύν, Δεύν,
“deum,” as from the Vaidic diu; or dia, “ devm,”
from divam.
165
X.
Why, then, should the Chinese, who suffer already
sufficiently from the peculiarities of their ill-defined
language, be precisely the one people of all the earth,
on which the most ambiguous, and, perhaps, the least
appropriate term for “ God,” is to be forced against,
may be, their wishes, and certainly, against the ge-
nius of their own tongue, and the evidence of their
senses? Even if Confucius could have unravelled
the mysterious import of SHIN wei Ling, for “God is
a Spirit” (St. John iv. 24), or SHIN-CHE shing-fung,
“the Holy-wind of (SHIN) Spirits” for “the Holy
Spirit of God,” etc., what would he have said when
reading of SHIN-che tsze, “the Son of the Spirits”
(SHIN)? He would have exclaimed, “Wo ming, wo
ming ee!” “ It is not clear, it is not indeed!” And
pointing to the most ancient records of the kingdom,
traced in his own hands, he would have asked: ‘“ Can
you possibly mean ‘Hwang T’héen SHANG-TE yuen
tsze,’ the first begotten of the Supreme Ruler in the
Imperial-Heavens ?’ (Shoo-king, v. 1.)
For the Chinese, like every other nation under
Heaven, have worshipped “one personal God, as
Supreme over all.” Already, in the days of Yaou
(B.c. c.c. 2300), SHANG-TE had long been adored as
166
alone Supreme over all things in Heaven and Earth.
His immediate attendants are, it appears (Kan-ing-
P. I. p. 11, ed. St. Jul.), five heavenly chiefs, members —
also of his council, who are set over the presidents
of Heaven, of the Earth, and of the Sea: These, in
turn, range in the world of “ SHIN,” or “ Spirits of
the air;” of “kwei,’ “ souls of the deceased;” and
“ke,” “Spirits of, or, from below, the Earth.”—
For, “ ἑνὰ ἴδοις ἂν ἐν πάσῃ γῇ," says Max. Tyrius, (Aoy. a
Pp: 3), ὁμόφωνον νόμον καὶ λόγον, ὅτι Θεὸς els πάντων
βασιλεὺς καὶ πατὴρ, καὶ θεοὶ πολλοὶ, θεοῦ παῖδες, συν-
άρχοντες Θεῷ. Ταῦτα καὶ ὁ “Ἕλλην λέγει, καὶ ὁ Βάρβαρος
λέγει----καὶ 6 σόφος, καὶ ὁ ἄσοφος.᾽"
But, over all those, and in Hwang-T’heen, the
* Supreme,” or * Imperial Heavens,” One “TE” ἘΠῚ
Ruler, is, ‘ Shang,” + higher than all. He is
SHANG-TE, “Apka-i dergi ugheri dalikha edjen-i tergiy-
embi,” as the Mandchou Dict. explains it, “‘ The majesty
of the unseen Lord and Governor of Heaven;” known
to the children of Israel as troy MM, “6 Ὕψιστος,"
“trbédov,” and to us as “the Lorp Most-Hien”
(Psalm xlviii. 2). He is “the unknown God,” they
ignorantly worship, whom “ we declare unto them;”
and whom we must teach them rightly to worship
as the only true God, “in whom we live, and
move, and have our being.” His name, which is
“exalted over all,” implies his office and his prero-
gatives. He is, as we shall see, Father, Lord, and
King or Governor supreme; and He alone is adored
as such. :
167
The first mention of SHANG-TE (as far as we
know, at least,) is made in the Canon of Yaou (8.6.
2300!). Lao-tsze speaks of him once; Mencius
three times. And although Confucius mentions
SHANG-TE but seldom (as he does SHIN) in his own
writings, we have met with it thirty-eight times in
the Shoo-king (the annals of the empire), compiled
by Confucius himself from older documents; and in
the Le-ke (or Chinese “ ritual”), SHANG-TE, like
SHIN, occurs very frequently. Those works are held
in the highest repute among the Chinese; we will
therefore bring forward the most remarkable passages
they contain in connection with this subject.
1) Shoo-king (book i. 11). Shun, as we have
seen, offered sacrifices first, to Saanc-Tr, the Supreme
Ruler, then to the inferior deities, and last of all to
SHIN.
2) ibid. (book i. 5). Yu says to the Emperor:
“ Show by your wisdom that’”—Show SHANG-Te,
Theen ke Shin ming yung hew——“ you have received
the government from Suanc-Tr; if Heaven should
again make known his will, use it for the blessing of
peace.” 2
3) ibid. (book iii. 1). T’ang (B.c. 1795) said to
his people: “ The ruler of Ηδά has transgressed,
but”—yu wei SHANG-TE, puh kan puh tchi—“ I fear
SuAnc-Tx; I dare not, not set Héd to rights.”
4) ibid. (book iii. 7). T’ang further says: Wei
hwang SHANG-TE heang chung yu hea-ming, jo yew
hang Sing. “ It is Imperial SHanc-Te alone who im-
168
parts to these inferior people, their intrinsic goodness
(or equity), which enables them to follow the dictates
of nature.” | ?
5) ibid. (ibid.) ‘If I should do evil,” says T’ang,
1 will not hide it; I will”—-wei keen tsae SHANG-
TE-che sin—“ only bring it into notice to the heart
(mind) of ὅβηανα- ΤῈ." (‘I said: I will confess my
sin unto the Lord,” etc.).
6) ibid. (book iii. 4). E said: SHANG-TE puh
chang tso shen heang che pe tseang; tso puh shen, heang
che peyang. ‘ SHane-TE is not always the same (in
his dealings). To those who do good he vouchsafes
a hundred blessings; while on those who do eyil, he
sends down a hundred calamities.” (See also book iii.
pp- 11, 12.)
7) ibid. (book iv. 1). ‘“ Suana-Tx” is “ πανυπέρ-
τατος δαίμων," apart from “ Sum.” Woo-wang said
of the tyrant Show: fei sze SHANG-TE, SHIN, ke.
“ He serves neither ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, nor Sur (Spirits of
the air) nor Ke (those of the Earth).” Show does
not—k’hung Shang T’heen—‘“ honour Supreme Hea-
ven,” and he has thus brought down calamities upon
the people;—and (ib. 3), SHANG-TE fei shun chuh
heang she sang— therefore, SHanc-TE has not been
favourable to him, and has decided on sending down |
the present season of mourning.” :
8) ibid. (book iv. 7). Woo-wang said, when
marching against rebels: Yu siao-tsze, kan ke ch’hing
SHANG-TE i go lwan leo. ‘“ I, a mean man, venture ©
respectfully to receive the order from Suanc-Tx, to
169
suppress revolutionary counsels. Only may you,
Sun (gods), be able to help me, in saving my peo-
ple, and, wo tso SHIN sew, do not injure the credit
of Sur.”
9) ibid. (book iv. 9). Woo-wang prospered by
following—SHANG-TE ming keue T’heen fe shin—
the commands of ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, till Heaven aided
his sincerity, and gave him victory (ib. book iy.
10).
10) ibid. (11.) Woo-wang said: “ When”—sHANG-
TE wun, Tee T’heen nae ta ming wen wang—"' SHANG-
ΤῈ heard (the pious wishes of the king), he (the
Supreme Te) approved of it; and Heaven then gave
full orders to Wen-wang,” etc.
11) ibid. (book v. 1). Imperial Heaven, Suanc-
ΤῈ has changed—Hwang-T’heen SHANG-TE ke kew
yuen tsze—(his decree) ‘in favour of his chief son”
(the Emperor).
12) ibid. (bookv.3). SHANG-TE yin yih yew Hea
puh shih yih; tseih wei TE heang ke. ‘ SHANG-TE
leads by kindness; Hea however did not yield to
mild measures; so that the Supreme Te sent down
calamities upon him.”
13) ibid. (book v. 3). ‘ The kings of the Yin
dynasty prospered, because they did not dare—shih
TE ming puh p’hei T’heen—to oppose the will of
SHane-Tr; but always acted in accordance with
Heaven,” οἷο. ; otherwise SHANG-TE puh paou “ would
not protect them,” etc.
14) ibid. (book v. 5). Good men like E-chih,
170
and Chin-hoo—kih yu SHANG-TE—influenced (the
decrees) of SHanc-Tz (by their pious conduct). |
15) “ The sovereigns of Ηδά were wicked men,
who—puh k’hih tsun ji k*heuen yu TE-che t/heih—
were not able to encourage themselves for the space
of one day to walk in the way of SHANG-Tx.”
16) ibid. (book v. 8). T’hang promoted SHANG-
TE-che kang ming—‘ the glorious will of Suanc-Tx.”
“‘ Such men—Tsun SHANG-TE, t’heih chi shin seun yu
kew tih-che hing—obey Suanc-Tz, by following after
knowledge and real sincerity in the practice of the
nine virtues.”
17) ibid. (book vi. 8, 9). Smane-Tx is said not
to have excused a fault, on account of which he cut
off the generations of the people of Meaou.
18) Mencius (Shang-Mang, p. 13; pp. 25, 27, ed.
St. J.) quotes the Shoo-king, to show that Heaven
gives men their kings, etc.; and that these, tsoo
SHANG-TE, assist Suanc-Tr to govern the world.
He says also in Hea-mang (pp. 3, and 15), that, “a
man, although ugly in appearance, if he restrain and
purify himself—tseih ko i sze SHANG-TE—he may
then bring offerings to SHane-Tx.”
19) Ching-tsze, in the Ta-Hio (c. x.) quotes the
She-king, to show that ere the Emperors of the Yin
dynasty had lost the heart of their people, they—
k’hih p’hei SHANG-TE—were able to stand before (or,
to associate) with Suane-Tr.
20) Confucius (Ch. Yung, ὁ. xix.) speaking of
the ancient kings, Wou-Wang and Tcheou-Kung,
171
says, “that they worshipped Suanc-Tr, by offering
the annual sacrifices of ‘ Kiao,” to Heaven, and that of
‘She, to the Earth.”*
* It was in the Chung-Yung (c. xvi.), that we
saw for the first time in classical Chinese the terms
“ Sain,” and also “ Smane-Tx,” in this passage.
We had before that seen “‘Suin” on the title-page
of a New Testament, but we had never before
met with “Suane-Tz.” Neither were we aware at
that time, that any difference of opinion existed on
the subject. It was not until last year that, while
on a visit to the library of the British and Foreign
Bible Society, for the purpose of making extracts from
a MS., most liberally placed at our disposal by the
Committee of that Society, we learned how much
dissension had been created in China, by the relative
merits of Sain and of SHane-Te, as substitutes for
“Gop” in Holy Scripture. But we received no
further information on the subject, until lately, when
the pamphlet “Shin v. Shang-Te,” fell into our hands,
Our impression on seeing “‘ Surn” for the first time
in classical Chinese (c. xvi.) was: How can such a
term be adopted for “Gop”? And when reading
SHane-Te also for the first time in this passage, our
spontaneous expression of surprise was: Why is not
this term used instead of Sumy, in order to express
“Gop”?
We mention this, not that it can possibly matter
172
It was on this passage of the Chung-Yung, A. Ré-
musat tells us (Tch.-young, not. p. 414), that the
Jesuit missionaries framed a memorial, which they
presented to the Emperor, Shing-tsou, in 1700, re-
lative to T’nrrn, “ Heaven,” and to “Ssane-Tx.”
This memorial was, we are told, approved by the
Emperor, and by the first literati in the Empire, as
agreeing with the doctrine of antiquity. It is writ-
ten in Mandchou, and runs as follows :—
““Nenehe Ti-Wang-se gemu Apka-de tourolon-be yabuk-
hangge, utkhai bit’hei ursei ‘ kiyao se-i’ tourolon; dergi
Ti-be weilerengge seme henduhengge inu. Tuttu oren-i
Pai-de Ti-seme arakhabi. Yasa-de sabure, arbun dursun
bishere Apka-be wetchere, dchokderengge waka; cho-
kome Apka-na tumen dchaka-i Edchen-Da-de wechere
dchokderengge; olkoro ginggulere ten-de ishenara dcho-
kode, gelhun-ako top-seme gisurerako; ‘ Dergi Apka,’
*Gosingha Apka,’ ‘Deserehe Apka,’ sehepi. Utkhai Ed-
chenbe tukiyere-de, ‘Edchen’ serako, ‘ Terkin-fedchile,’
“ Dergiyamun’ seme hendure adali. Udu tukiyere gebu-
lerengge adali ako bichibe.”’
“In adopting the ceremonies practised by the
former emperors and kings, in their worship of Hea-
ven,—ceremonies which have been called ‘ Kiao’ and
to any one what our private opinion be, but only to
show what was the first impression made on a mind
ignorant of the subject and totally unprejudiced, by
the terms Surin and Swana-Tx respectively, when
found at their proper place.
q
4
F'
a
;
4
,
‘
173
‘Se’ by the learned, and are addressed to Shang-Te
(for, as we know, the sepulchral tablet bears inscribed
on it, ‘To Shang-Te the Supreme Ruler’); the sacri-
fice is not offered to the material Heaven our eyes
see; but to the real Lord of Heaven and Earth, and
of all.things in them. Only, that, through fear and
respect, and in awe of his majesty, men dare not call
Him by his real name; but adopt the terms, ‘ Sub-
lime Heaven,’ ‘ Benevolent Heaven,’ ‘Infinite Hea-
ven.’ In like manner as, when addressing the Em-
peror, we do not call him by his name; but we say,
‘beneath the steps, ‘your footstool,’ ‘supreme tri-
bunal,’ etc. . Although the expressions of respect are
not all alike, yet, in reality, they mean one and the
same thing.”
For, says the Le-ke (c. ix.), Ke TE yu kiaou king-
che chih yay, “the sacrifice offered to SHane-Tr in
the open country, is in token of the highest venera-
tion.”
XI.
We again beg those of our readers, who have had
patience to follow us thus far, to decide for them-
selves, from the above passages, which of the two,
“ Suin” or “ SHane-Tx,” should be chosen to render
Sy “the Mighty,” or DON “the Awful,” and Θεός
the “Supreme” Gop, into Chinese? We cannot, of
174
course, pretend to judge of the actual and practical
influence of “ Sun” or “ SHane-TEz” on the Chinese
multitude. We only judge from a few of the standard
works, to which every educated Chinese may be
referred and brought to book; and from which works
the Chinese people affect to draw their religion.
These classical works, then, are our starting-point,
in common with the Chinese; and we ask, anxious
as we are to learn, whether “‘ Gop” is to be rendered
by “ Suzy,” which, by the showing of those standard
authorities, expresses no “ person,” since it is a col-
lective noun, but at best “ἃ Deity” of an inferior
rank; by “ Surv,” which, on the testimony wrung
from Dr. Morrison himself (Dict. vol. i. p. 184),
seems “ to denote a sort of Spirits like the Roman genit
or the Greek demons?” Or is not the “ Miauty Gop”
to be expressed in Chinese by the “ One supreme
personal God” they have, who, according to their
notions, rules in Heaven (see San-kiao-huen-lew, pp.
9-20), surrounded by his ministers, over whom he is
Lord? In like manner as we worship our own Gop,
the Lorp or Hosts, who reigns and rules over the
ministers of His will, over His Angels, and His Arch-
angels, supreme.
And let no one exclaim at this comparison. ΤῈ is
only, “"Ayvworos Θεός".---Ζεύς “ ἐκ τοῦ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν᾽"----
“ τοῦτον ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν: ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσ-
pov,” κιτιλ. It is, of course, comparing error with
truth. But we, like our chief, St. Paul, ought also
to try and discover in the error of others, every
-175
approach to the truth we hold, and turn that to the
best account, in favour of the truth, and not against
it,—& Θεῷ ye μὰν τέλος. SHANG-TE is already, by
their own showing, Father, Lord, Governor, and
Judge, who rewards the good and punishes the
wicked; who is touched by righteous deeds, and in-
censed at evil ones. What remains for us to do?
No more, but, at the same time, no less than what
St. Paul did at Athens, and at Lystra. We have to
declare to the inhabitants of China, that he ‘“ whom
they thus ignorantly worship,” and not one of the
innumerable spirits infinitely below hin, is, in fact,
“the God who made the world and all things there-
in”; seeing he is, as they believe already, “ Lord of
Heaven and Earth.”
For, why did the inspired Apostle, whose example
we may safely follow, preach “ἄγνωστον Ocdv”—
τὸν AIA, and not τὸ τεθρυλημένον * AAIMONION” of
Socrates, which was as familiar as “Ζεύς to the
audience on Mars’-hill, if ‘“‘ Sumy,” and not “ SHane-
Tn,” be GOD? Because, as they now have in China,
so alse at Athens and at Lystra, St. Paul’s hearers
had fixed notions of their “ ἑνὸς θεοῦ βασιλεῶς καὶ
matpos,”—Wwhereas, in the Middle-kingdom, as regards
“« Sun,” in like manner as of old in Greece, “ περὶ μὲν
δαιμόνων----ν ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν ὄνομα, δῆλον, ἡ δὲ οὐσία,
ἀφανὴς, ἡ δὲ δύναμις, ἀμφισβητήσιμος." (Max. Tyr.
λογ. a.) But, as we see that the Athenians accepted
at once the personal attributes of Ζεύς, announced by
St. Paul, so also will the people of China more rea-
176
dily, and also more easily, receive, how “ Suane-Tx,”
their “ personal,” though “invisible” Supreme God,
who is in “‘ Hwang-T’heen,” Imperial Heaven, can be
their Creator, their Maker, their Preserver, their
Deliverer, their refuge in time of trouble. And they
will learn to consider him no longer as they have
always done, in the light of “a Lord,” or of “a
Father” only; when they, like Aquila at Athens,
know Him as “their FATHER who is in Heaven,
through His Son Jusus Curist their Saviour, who is
One with Him and His Horny Spirit, Gop blessed for
ever. Amen!” But, we think, we may affirm, if it
were only from the examples brought forward, that
the Chinese never can or will believe all that of
“ Sun,” who is “7d Aacpoveor,” perhaps “ Δαίμων,"
and not “ Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ."
However zealous and well-meaning Missionaries in
China may be, they must be sensible of the fact, that
they can not coin a new system of their own, and
force it upon the people, as if these had never before
had any idea of “ὁ Deity.” Preachers of the Gospel
there, have to deal with a teeming population of
sharp, clever, intelligent, sceptical, not naturally
devout or religious, but often very learned men, who
can claim a national individuality of more than four
thousand years; and they have to teach those people
through the medium of words in the language, that
have become old and hoary in their own intrinsic
meaning. This, of course, can not be changed at
once to suit a particular purpose. We ought not,
177
therefore, to delude ourselves so far, as to suppose
that the people of China will, as a matter of course,
bow to a few scattered emissaries, of a more florid
complexion, perhaps, but still from foreign, and,
therefore, despised nations. For amissionary “‘ mixes”
among the people; he does not “blend” with them.
To the Brahman, proud of his archaic ancestry, the
missionary is “ Mlechch’ha,” ‘a babbler,” who speaks
a jargon, and not his own sacred idiom, the melli-
fluous Sanscrit. To the supercilious Chinese, he is
“ Fan-kwei,” a “ foreign devil,” or, at least, “ Wai-jin,”
“ βάρβαρος, “a ‘man’ from without,” who (Ming-
hien-dsi, p. 5) “is held cheap, although a ‘thing’
from afar may fetch a high price.” This inferior
position is especially felt when those messengers do
not present a united and well-trained company,
under one head, and acting in one spirit; but, on
the contrary, differ as much from one another in
dress and discipline, as they do in mind and creed,—
one stoutly denying the truth of what his neighbour
affirms is the only way to Heaven.
For, granting that such a strong-hold as the Chi-
nese mind might, under exceptionable circumstances
at God’s bidding, be invested and taken like Jericho,
the besieging force should, at all events, be as close
and compact as the Israelite army was around the
walls of the city “fenced up to Heaven.” And
“‘native” preachers of influence, wherein the strength
of a mission lies, should be secured from within the
citadel to make it surrender. For a missionary may,
13 2
178
indeed, from without, and ‘with a foreign accent,
“harangue” the people on the wall, but a native
preacher from within, will alone “ persuade” them to
yield.—A few sharp-shooters only, and im their own
strength too, we know, did no great things at Ai.
In like manner, we cannot expect that, unless God
work a miracle in our favour, the Chinese, proud of
their ancient institutions, will, on the strength of
what a few strangers say, give up at once, prejudices,
if you like, but still, associations, a creed, and notions,
well-nigh four thousand years old. Would we do so,
under similar circumstances? Assuredly not. We
ask the question, not, indeed, as doubting the sole
efficacy of God’s help,—for “ without Him we can do
nothing,” and He “ hath chosen the weak things of
the world to confound the things which are mighty,”
—but we ask it, because nothing is easier than for
“ self,” in every shape of “will” or “way,” to ereep
in under the bright covering of “ the will and glory
of,God.” Like the ghost of Samuel under the witch’s
wand, “self” rises at every man’s bidding before
him, and is to him as a god. So that even while
engaged in God’s service, we may come in our own
name, and deliver our own message. Even then,
we may ascribe to His august Rule, actions and
words for which we shall one day blush in His pre-
sence. Let us, then, see, that in all things we act
by His will alone. For, undoubtedly, our only way
to secure God’s assistance, or even to dare look
for His blessing on our labours, is, first to place "
179
ourselves in a fit state to receive either. We must,
as the Holy Apostle says, “ stand fast in one spirit,
with one mind, striving fogether for the faith of
the Gospel.” “Ὅθεν πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν τῇ τοῦ
ἐπισκόπου γνώμῃ, says St. Ignatius (ad Ephes. iv.),
“73 yap ἀξιονόμαστον ὑμῶν πρεσβυτέριον, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄξιον,
οὕτως συνήρμοσται τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ. Διὰ
τοῦτο ἐν τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ ὑμῶν καὶ συμφώνῳ ἀγάπῃ ᾿Ιησοὺς
Χριστὸς ἄδεται.---. Κρήσιμον οὖν ἐστιν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀμώμῳ ἐνότητι
εἶναι, ἵνα καὶ Θεοῦ πάντοτε μετέχητε.᾽ For, says a still
higher authority,— Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ Θεός,
GAN’ εἰρήνης"; would we might add in truth, “ ὡς ἐν
πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ayiov”!—Then “God, even
our own God, shall give us His blessing,” and “ pros-
per our handy-work.” Then the hope of Heaven
among men will appear no longer in the languid
throb of intermittent life, but in the continual flow
of vital energies, gushing as from the heart into the
remotest channels of the Earth,—Curist Himself
being the Head of His body, the Church.
We have, then, no choice but, as St. Paul did at
Athens and at Lystra, to take the people of China
as we find them, and to make the most of what they
have already that is available towards a more perfect
knowledge of the truth. This is evidently our only
chance or hope of success; especially when we find
that their religion has, in form, many points in com-
mon with our own,—one personal God, supreme over
all—F'ather—who has a Son, and rules in Heaven
over His ministers and a multitude of Spirits, “‘ who
180
bringeth low and lifteth up” whom He will; and
rewards or punishes whom He pleases. One who
is worshipped alike by the Taouists (see Lao-tsze,
c. iv.), by the Joo, or disciples of Confucius (see
Ch.-yung. c. xix.), and even by the Buddhists (see the
order given by the Emperor Kien-long, relative to
the offerings to be made to “ Shang-Si” (7. g., Shang-
Te), apart from all other “ gods”—‘‘in edicula Deus
unicus.”—(Rituel Mandchou, p. 27, and the special
rites thereof at p. 45.)
No! we do not believe that a million copies of the —
Bible, with “ Sun” in it as a substitute for “ GOD,’
would carry with them to one educated (but as yet
unconverted) Chinese, who adores antiquity (and
those are the men to be won first, if possible), the
weight of either that single passage of the Shoo-king
(book i.), where Shun is said to have sacrificed jirst
to ὅ3βηλνα- ΤῈ; and only after he had worshipped in-
ferior divinities, to have glanced at the “ host of
Su,” or “ Spirits,” all round; or the warning of the
wicked Show, “who refused to serve SHane-Tr,
Suty, and Ke,” in due order (book iv. 1). A Chinese
only knows, and believes in, Sum (if he believe at
all), as he sees it thus }jjf, in his copy of the classics;
or in its more primitive form, as it stood engraved on
the bamboo-tablets of the Canon of Yaou. Every
attempt to qualify “Sui,” either by “Shang,”
“High,” or “Choo,” ‘ Lord” (‘ Shang-Shin” and
“ Choo-Shin,” as in Dr. Morrison’s translation), only
adds to the ambiguity of the original term, which,
181
if it can ever be made to mean θεός, “ ἃ god” (θεὸς
ξυλινός), can not possibly be brought to stand for ὁ
Θεός. For, be it remembered, * Surin” is not sus-
ceptible of either article, or of any other defining
affix; and being itself a collective noun, it never once
conveyed the “unity” originally taught in “ Deus”
or Θεός.
Clearly, then, the only term available for “ ὁ Θεός;
the one God—GOD, is the name by which alone the
Chinese express their belief in the “ Unity of Power
and of Worship,” namely, SHANG-TE, ὁ Ὕψιστος.
Ke TE yu kiaou king-che chih yay! ‘“ The worship of
Suanc-TE in the open country is the greatest act of
adoration”; and—* foo le pen yu TA-YIH,”’—those
rites have for their origin the “ great Unity” says
the Le-ke (c. viii.). He stands as high-exalted over
Suin in the mind of an educated Chinese, imbued
with classical lore, as, at Rome, he who said of
old, :
“‘ Vos quoque, plebs Superfim, Fauni, Satyrique,
Laresque,
Fluminaque et Nymphe, semidefimque genus,
Denique ab antiquo Divi veteresque novique,
In nostrum cuncti tempus adeste, Chao!”
(Ov. Ibis. 81, sq.)
or as the Lorp Most Hieu does in our own mind over
the “ powers of the air” and their “ prince.” For,
as we have seen, the real meaning of “ Surin” (wit-
ness also Dr. Morrison, p. 804, vol. i.) as a noun, in
182
classical Chinese is, “ Power,” or “ Spirits” of the air:
So that “Shang-Shin” can only mean the “ Highest
Sun”; that is, “Shin-kiun” (Tai-Shang. ad in.)
which means, “the Prince of the power of the air.”
We think, therefore, that in forcing upon the Chi-
nese the term “Sury,” as it seems to us, a mere
mockery of the abundant and overflowing meaning
of EL, ELOHIM, and Ὃ ΘΕΟΣ, in the sense of
“God,” which it never had, and which is quite our
own, we needlessly put a stumbling-block in the way
of the heathen whom we wish to bring to the know-
ledge of the True God. We do worse. We foster
among them their own polytheism. And while, at
the outset, we thus undo with the left-hand what the
right-hand does, we do not sufficiently consider, that
we may be sowing the seed of division, if not of
future sects, and, perhaps, of heresies, among the still
unsuspecting people of China. ἜΗΝ
For Sun is only a vassal-prince. If we set him
up against his liege sovereign “ SHanc-Tx,” we set
up δαίμονα for τὸν Θεόν ;—one of the “ plebs ceeli,”
“ divum,” pro “Dzo.” And we do little else in the
eyes of an educated Chinese, than play the’ war of the
Titans against him who— |
“ Diyosque mortalesque turbas
Imperio regit Unus eequo.”
183
XII.
We do not presume to think that our—sometimes
free—rendering of the above passages, fixes irre-
vocably their meaning. For it is impossible, without
native teaching, and with only a very scanty supply
of Chinese books, to acquire more than a moderate
knowledge of the classical “‘ koo-wen”; and as to the
spoken language, the country air does not of itself,
like that of Nan-king, tend to infuse much “ kwan-
hwa” into the system. At the same time, we may
hope that the portions in our rendering with which
our betters may, perhaps, find fault, do not essentially
bear on the most important point,—which is, the
meaning and acceptation of Sui and of Suanc-Te.
Lo us, therefore, it would appear, that no other con-
clusion can be drawn from the examples brought
forward than this:—that Sumy in Chinese corre-
sponds to τὸ Aaipdveov, or to Δαίμων, and is only
seldom applicable to θεός, in Greek ; while SHane-TE
alone represents Ex, Eronimm, and‘O ΘΕΟΣ.
For we have seen that —
1) Suane-Te is ONE, over all, Supreme: so is Ex
and Etoumm: so is also @eés,—not only in its original
meaning, but in its acceptation in Greek writers.
See above, p. 126; and also, for instance, Orac. Si-
byllina (Procem. and lib. i. 1, seg. )—
184
Eis Θεὸς ὅς μόνος ἄρχει, ὑπερμεγέθης ἀγένητος.
᾿Αλλὰ Θεὸς μόνος εἷς πανυπέρτατος, ὅς πεποίηκεν
Οὐρανὸν, ἠέλιόν τε, K.T.X.
and Orpheus (fr. 11.}--
Eis ἔστ᾽ αὐτοτελής, αὐτοῦ δ᾽ ὑπό πάντα τελεῖται
οὐδέ τις ἔσθ᾽ ἕτερος .----
In Homer, the “individual god” of the Greeks, Ζεὺς
—‘“ theologice sic vocatur summus deus,” says
Damm, is :—*“ Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν te θεῶν re,”—" ὅστε θεοῖσε
καὶ ἀνθρώποισι ἀνάσσει." 11. 8. 669. “ ὑψίζυγος, aibépe
ναίων," δ. 106. “μέγας βασιλεύς" .-- ὕψοθι ἐών᾽.---““ ὕπα-
tos θεῶν καὶ ἄριστος." τ. 258, etc.
Callimachus addresses τὸν Δία (in Jov. 91) as—
χαῖρε μέγα, Κρονίδη travyréptata, δῶτορ ἐάων
σὺ δ᾽ οὐ Odves: ἐσσὶ γὰρ αἰεί.
and Cleanthes (Hym. in Joy. 2, 7)—
Zed, φύσεως ἀρχηγὲ, νόμου μέτα πάντα κυβερνῶν
χαῖρε ----
\ a “ 4 ς , a
gol δὲ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν
πείθεται, ἧ κεν ἄγῃς, καὶ ἐκὼν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται.
and among later writers, Lucian (Philopatr. 12)
says,—
KPIT. Καὶ τίνα ἐπομόσομαί γε:
ΤΡΙΕΦ. “Ὑψιμέδοντα θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα,
Υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
"Ev ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἐνὸς tpla,
Ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τὸν δ᾽ ἠγοῦ Θεόν."
2) As Κ'βηανα:- ΤῈ is “ Supreme,” so also he is
worshipped — :
Bilin
cy ν = =. =>
ee 4.
4) The first, and before all other deities (see above,
pp. 167, 168;) and Le-ke, (c. vi.). “ Command the
people” —* wo-puh hwei chuh ke le i k*hing Hwang-
T’heen-SHANG-TE; ming-shan; {ta-ch’huen, sse-fang-che-
SHIN,” etc.—‘ not to hesitate to contribute with all
their power to the worship of the Imperial Heaven,
SHaneG-Te ; to that of celebrated mountains; of great
rivers; and of the Sum of the four quarters,” etc.
(ibid. c. viii. ete.). That sacrifice takes place in the
open country (sub dio), in order “to establish the
Rule (or Authority) of Heaven” (see above, p. 133;
and Le-ke, c. viii.). In consequence of that sacrifice,
“the winds blew and the rain fell moderately” (c. ix.).
The object of those rites is the “ Ta-yih,” or “ great
unity”; and they are “ graduated from those ordered
for ὅπανα- ΤῈ, downwards, to the ceremonies intended
for the worship of the tutelary gods, of the hills, of
the rivers, and of Shin” (6. viii.). That worship of
SHanGc-Te—“ ju keaou king-chih che yay ”—is per-
formed in the open country in token of the highest
possible veneration” (c. ix. ad f.); and the victim
appointed for that sacrifice is an ox, purified by a
certain process;* whereas any kind of ox may be
offered to ancestors. This is intended, says the Le-
ke, to show the superiority of the Deity over the
~
* Compare “ ’IovFe xparovFi tpe βουφ getrov”—ofter
three oxen “Jovi Grabovi” (Iguvinian tab. iv. 6, 2,
sg.). They were “ τῤεφ βουφ xarepoud,” “ tres boves
186
kwei, or “souls of men” (c. x.). That sacrifice again —
brings happiness, if duly performed (c. xvi., and
xxiv.), or misery if it be neglected (ὁ. xxvii.).
b) The rites of the worship of Suane-TE are
always conducted by one man, set apart for that pur-
pose, viz., by the “‘ T’heen-T'sze”—‘“ Son of Heaven,”
the Emperor (Le-ke, c. v.), who, being thus set apart
by Heaven, says of himself (c. ii.) “ Yu yih jin”—“ 1
am one man,” ὦ. 6... “alone of my kind!” The Em-
peror is thus both the High Priest, the King, and the
Prophet of his people; for he alone has the power
(Ch. Yung. c. xxviii. 2), to enforce the rites and
ceremonies of that sacrifice, which, he alone also, can
offer before going to battle (c. v.), while his officers |
preside over the worship of inferior deities. He
candidi” (comp. Liv. xxii. 10,—“ bubus Jovi trecentis,
multis aliis divis bubus albis,” and Sibyll. Or.—
Ζάλευκοι τᾶυροι δὲ Διὸς παρὰ βωμὸν ἀγέσθων
"Hyatt, μηδέ τε νυκτί---
or at other times one only (Ig. tab. v. 6,24) : “ Ἰουπατεῤ,
Sate, τεφε ecrov Firdov,” “Jupiter, Saisi, tibi esto
vitulo”; and v. 4, ‘IovFe warpe βουμ πεῤακνε," ‘ Joyi
Patri bovem castum,” etc. He, like Shang-Te, was
worshipped the jirst (ibid. tab. ii. 22, sg.): IouFe
Ilatpe πῤουμου ἀμπεντου," “ Jovi Patri primum rem
divinam facito” (see Grotefend. Rud. L. Umbr. iii.
19, sqq.).
187
regulates that worship, and conducts it, dressed in
his robes, and in other suitable apparel (Chow-Le,
pp- 13, 89, ed. Gingell), made of a particular silk, for
the manufacture of which the Empress herself gathers
mulberry leaves in the third month of Spring (Le-ke,
6. vi.).—It is only “ Shing-jin wei neng heang TE”—a
“holy man,” a “man eminent in virtue,” who can
suitably worship Suanc-Tx: and we read (c. xxiv.),
that so great was the piety of the Emperor T’ang,—
“kih che-che SHANG-TE”—that it gradually reached
SHANG-Te unhindered (by any sinful actions),—
“She che TE ming shih ju kew kwo”—and that, as a
reward for his devout conduct, ΤῈ ordered that T’ang
should become the pattern of the whole empire.
_. We may compare the salient points in the worship
of Suane-Tx, as distinguished from that of Sur, and
of other inferior deities, with the worship of Θεός or
Ζεύς among the Greeks; and we may then see which
comes nearest in dignity and importance to the ser-
vice rendered τῷ Θεῷ, or to DTN, Exonm, in Holy
Scripture. :
3) Suane-Tx, like Ex, Exonm, and Θεός, dwells
in Heaven (see above, p. 169), which is, “ οἶκος θεῶν
μακάρων. Orph. H. iv. “ μακάρεσσι θεοῖς ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς
αἰεί." Hes. Th. 128. “Spatium cceli domus.” Lucr.
ii. 1109. “Palatia celi” (Ov. M. i. 175), ete.,
where “ ἔστε μέγας ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεὺς" (Sophoc. El. 174);
and Θεός (Orph. fr. ii. )—
— ἔστι δὲ πάντως
αὐτὸς ἐπουράνιος, καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ πάντα τελευτᾷ.
188
And as to our God, troy by, “The Mighty—Most-
High,” —fi2p DY! TaD PITY Bye 3 DIT
03:5) Nd pwn “DeA JHaw,—will He really
dwell on the Earth? For behold the Heavens “ are
His dwelling-place,” and the Heavens of Heavens
cannot contain Him who yet—D'aY3 mis ΚΡ,
ΤΉΝ) ----ἰς humbleth Himself to behold what is in
Heaven and on the Earth.”
4) “Heaven,” T’heen, as abode of “ Suane-Tx,” is
called “Imperial” (Shoo-k. iv. 9,11; and Le-ke, c.
Vi. ), “' koopoxpdtap”—“ πανυπέρτατε δαίμον 1" Orph. H. iv.
Thus, ¢. g., as abode of “ Exon,” Dan. iv. 23, “ΤῚ
NY pop! “| ὉΠ, “until thou hast learnt, O.
king! that the Heavens rule”; and, Eccl. viii. 4,
N'DY jb NINN, “they are decreed from Hzaven.”
5) Heaven is identified with SHane-Tr, with EL,
Exon, and ὁ Θεός, and thus, as it were, personified
(see above p. 180; and Le-ke, c. ii. viii. etc.; Ch.
Yung. c. xx. 7, etc.) ‘ Initio primus in terris,” says
Euhemerus, “ imperium summum Uranus habuit”
(Ennii rel. p. 65, ed. Gil.); and Hes. Th. 45.
θεῶν yévos —
— οὕς Γαῖα καὶ Οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ἔτικτεν, κ.τ.λ.
Plato, Tim. sec. 15, οὔο. ; and St. Luke, ο. xv., πάτερ,
ἥμαρτον eis τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν cov.” And Asch.
fr. 1. 96, “Ζεύς ἐστιν αἰθὴρ ---- Ζεὺς δ᾽ οὐρανός," κ.τ.Χ.
(Comp. Job xxii. 19, DYY 5) πῆ το.) And for
that reason,—
6) “ Heaven,” T’HEEn, is worshipped
189
a) as abode of Suane-Tr, and with him (see p.
169; and the Shoo-king throughout). Le-ke (c. x.),
ts’heu tsae ju Tih, ἐπ θα tsae ju T’HEEN. She i tsun
T’HEEN, cul ts’hin Tih yay. ‘‘ We receive our wealth
from the Earth, and our laws from Heaven. We
ought therefore to obey Heaven, and to feel attached ©
to the Earth.” We read further, that ὅπανα- ΤῈ is
worshipped in the open country, “for the express
purpose,” says the Le-ke, ὁ. viii., so-i tching T7HEEN-
wei yay, “of establishing the Rule (or Majesty) of
Heaven.” (See also, c. v.)*
δ) “Heaven” is worshipped as abode of Θεός or
* The name and worship of “ T’heen,” Heaven,
seems to have passed from China into the neigh-
bouring countries. Thus, “T’heen-li,” “ Reason of
Heaven,” “‘ Providence,” became, probably, “ Tai-ri,”
when roughly pronounced by the Uighurs, and
adopted by them to denote both “‘ Heaven” and “ God
Most-high.” “'Ta-ri” is also used in Uighur as an
adjective, very much like “Shin” in the Chinese
“Shin-niu,” “dia γῦναι".--“’ δαιμόνιος avip”—“ divus
Augustus,” etc., to mean “ Heavenly,” or ““ divine.”
For instance, we read in petitions from the inha-
bitants of Chamul to the Emperor of China, “ Tai-ri
khakhan serintchib (‘lan-min’) neder ma.” ‘ The hea-
venly Emperor will graciously accept,’ ete. (See
Klaproth’s Spr. u. Schr. der Uighuren, pp. 9, 28, 29;
and A. Remusat’s Ll. Tartares, lang. Ouigour.)
190
Ζεύς. Euhemerus (1. ὁ. p. 67) says: “ Ibique in eo
monte (Panto) aram creat Coelo, primusque in ea ara
Jupiter sacrificavit; in eo loco suspexit in celum*
quod Οὐρανός nominatur ; idque Jupiter, quod ether
vocatur precans primum ‘Ccelum’ nominavit ; eam-
que hostiam quam ibi sacravit, totam adolevit.”
And Orpheus (H. iv.) Οὐρανοῦ θυμίαμα, λίβανον, as
quoted above, says (Faiav Οὐρανόν τε acai!
isch. P. 491).
O ὑρανὲ παγγενέτωρ----πανυπέρτατε δαίμον
κλῦθ᾽, ἐπάγων ζωὴν ὁσίην μύστῃ νεόφαντῃ, etc.
6) “ Heaven” is “taken to witness,” as abode of
Eronm. “This day I take to witness—O32 ΤΩΣ
PINTNS) OMT ms oT—Heaven and Earth
against you,’ said Moses to the children of Israel
(Deut. iv. 26; xxx. 19; xxxi. 28).
7) ὅβηλανα- ΤῈ, like Exonmm and ὁ Θεός, rules in
Heaven, surrounded by his ministers (see Kan-ing-
pien, pp. 10, 11; and “‘ San-kiao huen-lew,” pp. 9-20).
They are inferior to him, for he alone is “ Shang,”
Supreme, over them. And as regards ELoum and
6 Θεός, those inferior Spirits or gods are either their
creatures, or their offspring. Porphyrius (in Stob.
Ecl. Phys. i. 2,53) says: “7d δὲ πλῆθος τῶν θεῶν ἔργον
* Comp. the Chinese Emperor, ascending a high
hill to worship Heaven, etc. (Le-ke, ο. ix.; and Vi-
tringa in Is. ii. 899, a.)
ae
191
ἔστι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, ἅμα τῷ κόσμῳ γενόμενον." Θεός ad-
dresses them (Plato Tim. sec. 16) thus:—* θεοί θεῶν,
ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, ἅ Sv ἐμοῦ γενόμενα ἄλυτα
ἐμοῦ γ᾽ ἐθέλοντος.---μιμούμενος τὴν ἐμὴν δύναμιν περὶ τὴν
ὑμετέραν γένεσιν," κιτιλ. “ Nam ministros regni sui
Deus genuit,” says Seneca (in Lact. lib. ὁ. v. vii.),
and Manu (Sanhita, i. 22)—
karmatmanan-cha devanan so s srijat pranimam
Prabhu: |
sadhyanan-cha ganam suk’hsman jagyan chaiva
sanatanam. | }
* The Supreme Ruler created a host of gods, endowed
with principles of action and with living souls; as
well as a number of subtle genii, and also the per-
petual sacrifice.” That “plebs ceeli,” “ πλῆθος θεῶν,"
those “ ministri regni dei,” are in Holy Scripture, the
poy ‘33, Gen. vi. 2; Job i. 26, etc. (rendered in
Chaldee by ΤΙΝ ‘Nd, “legions of Angels”), and
the Dawn NI¥, “orparia οὐράνιος, St. Luke ii. 13.
They are mentioned in Carm. Samarit. c. iii. 8, as
AATALAS 'XANIV, “ copiz divine” (frequently al-
luded to by the Sabeans in Lib. Adami, as 13Zo}
“genius,” from 34s “to excel,” (Psalm ciii. 20,—
“Angels that excel in strength”); as, ¢.g., lib. i.
p- 174, Ἰδῆάοο 1μ31 1520} Ἰὼ» 1,10 AX]—‘‘ Thou Ge-
nius, harbinger of life, thyself ready, and making
others ready also,” etc.); and the sm2my “ Potes-
tates,” ἐξουσίαι, Carm. iv. 8. They are the ἄγγελοι τοῦ
θεοῦ," —in one sense “ἥρωες ἀγαυοὶ (Pyth. Aur. c. 2), on
which Hierocles remarks : —* τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ δαίμονας
192
ἀγαθοὺς καλεῖν ἔθος, ὡς ὄντας δαήμονας καὶ ἐπιστήμονας
τῶν θείων νόμων.--“Οθεν καὶ ‘ Θεοῦ παΐῖδες᾽" οἱ ἥρωες εἰκότως
ἐπευφημοῦνται.᾽ They are, as the Clarian Apollo said
at Colophon (Orac. v. ed. Gall. p. 14; Lact. lib. 1.
ο. 7) :—
—‘* μικρὰ δὲ θεοῦ μερίς ἄγγελοι ἡμεῖς."
who, (Orph. fr. iii. p. 454, ed. H.; and Euseb. Pr. Evy.
Ρ. 686, ed. Col.) around θεοῦ----
—‘ θρόνῳ πυρόεντι παρεστᾶσιν πολύμοχθοι
ρονῷ πὺυρ ρ
ἄγγελοι οἷσι μέμηλε, βροτοῖς ὡς πάντα τελεῖται."
and stand “orl πρᾶτον Θεὸν καὶ νοατόν," Says Onatas,
“ ὥσπερ χορευταὶ ποτὶ κορυφαῖον, καὶ στρατιῶται ποτὶ στρα-
τηγόν᾽" (Stob. Ecl. Ph. i. 2, 28),—‘ στρατία θεῶν τε καὶ
δαιμόνων" (Macrob. Sat. i. 23). They are (Orph. fr.
111. 3) subject to him,—
“ς δαίμονες bv φρίσσουσι, θεῶν δὲ δέδοικεν ὅμιλος ""
and they obey (Aristoph. Nub. 555)—
“«γμψιμέδοντα μὲν θεῶν
2)
Ζῆνα τύραννον
a) As regards Exon, we read in his word, “ The
Scripture of Truth,” of the ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις (Eph. 111. 10; comp. with Asc. Isaie y.
vii. 9); and that even πλῆθος (St. Luke ii. 13), “a
multitude” is but a small band of that Heavenly
Host. We are told of MIM*NI¥“WY, “ The Prince,”
or “ Captain of that Host” (Josh. v. 14) ;—of “ Che-
rubim” (Psalm Ixxx. 1; xcix. 1)— (Ὁ Gs
EO
— wie ον “who stand nearest to God” (Hyde,
Rel. V. P. p. 262) ;— of “ Seraphim” (Is. vi. 1-7) ;*—
of “ Archangels” (1 Thess. iv. 16; St. Jude, 9; Rev.
xii. 7);—of “ Watchers” (Dan. iv. 10, 17, 20);+—
* The Eastern Church teaches that Angels are
arranged in three διακοσμήσεις ; each of which contains
three rdfeu.— I. τὰ Χερουβὶμ, τὰ Σεραφὶμ, καὶ τοὺς Θρό-
vous.—II. τὰς Κυριότητας, τὰς ᾿Εξουσίας, τὰς Δυνάμεις.
—III. τὰς ᾿Αρχὰς, τοὺς ᾿Αρχαγγέλους καὶ τοὺς ᾿Α γγέλους.
(See Metroph. Critopuli Conf. p. 52), or, “ἐν ἐννέα
χοροὺς διαιροῦνται, καὶ οἱ ἐννέα τούτοις εἰς τρεῖς τάξεις"
(Confessio Orthod. p. 80, ed. Kimmel). It is in
accordance with these hierarchical orders in Heaven,
that the same Church praises God, for that He has
also in His Church upon Earth, “ chosen faithful
men to do His will; + ojo 40 ps σι) .9;20
qa (2 Ws02) Jats yu] LAgso 1105 οἱ r2S0
. foy\%o9—and having distinguished their several or-
ders one from the other, has made them ‘superior’
and ‘inferior’ (middling) according to the number of
the nine orders of Angels.” (Codex Liturg. Eccles.
Univ. ed. J. A. Asseman. v. ii. pp. 18, 49, 74, 132,
137, etc.; but see especially the learned note of
J. Morinus, in the Appendix to that volume.)
+ We read in Dan. iv. 10, 20,—WIp) TY 198)
mm} Ne}, “Behold a Watcher and a Holy One
were coming down from Heaven;” and v. 14,—
SDNY POMP ND NDINB PTY NWR, “This
14
194
of an “innumerable company of Angels” (Heb. xii.
22; comp. Ase. Is. ix. 6), whose honour and pri-
vilege is, as Seberianus (Hom. i. ad. f.) says:—
ε agusun fre. ΡΣ ΤΣ] ear re_1s4 9 {μεν lyeis fyusputap,”’ “to
matter is by the decree of the ‘ Watchers,’ and the
demand by the word of the Holy Ones.” (A. V.)
Whether or no, those ““ Watchers” were a Zendic
notion (see Rhode, die Relig. des Zend-V. p. 332,
341, sq.), we find them mentioned very frequently
among the Rabbis, and in the early writers of the
Eastern Church. They were oxnpo sym "565. says
R. Saad. B. Ga’ou, called ἽΝ “ Watchers” (Gesen.
1. c.), according to ὃ. Ben. Melech,—obws sv frp—
“because YY is always on the watch” (Hyde
de V. P. Rel. p. 269). We cannot find that, as
Winer (Real-Wort. 1. c.) and Gesenius (1. 6.) say,
they have much in common with the “ Farohars,” or
“ Fravaharis,” of the Zend-Avesta. But their office
seems rather to correspond with that of the Ny
yO in Job xxxiii, 23, which A. Ezra explains to be
wp TD y3PM Ned pp fo ah wfby, “an Angel who .
frequents a man to preserve him from evil (‘ Angels,’
comp. ‘ Serosch,’ in the Z. Av.); and to make him
understand the secret of his intricate walk in life.”
For, there is—vtv Ssppep in op” py qhby o7f $25 Ρ’---
“to every man an instructing Angel who directs his
star (fortune), and who intercedes for him” (Eisen-
meng. Entdekt. Jud. ii. p. 389; in Gesen. Thes. 1. c.).
195
stand around the throne of God” (Rev. v. 11, vii. 11),
‘whom they worship” (Psalm xcevii. 7; Heb. i. 6;
Rey. vii. 11); “and do His commandments, hearken-
ing unto the voice of His Word” (Ps. ciii. 19, 20).
The word Y, in Dan. iv. 10, 17, 20, is rendered
in the Arabic vers. by οὐδὸν “vigil”; in the lxx.,
by ep, which means nothing in Greek. This figures
in the Coptic version of Daniel as orup (ed. Tattam,
p- 298), and ovip (ed. J. Bardelli, pp. 46,47). Inthe
Armenian version it is rendered by “ gqniwp[Ant,”
“watching,” “ vigil,” éypyyopés; which is exactly
given in “bodrii” of the ancient Slavonic version.
Pry “Watchers,” are the “" Γρήγοροι ἀλφιστῆρες" (of
Orac. Sibyll, p. 90), the try, “ vigiles,” often
mentioned in the “ Book of Enoch” (¢.g., c. xii.),
said of “‘ good Angels,” Ont: 722. : PMA: PLAT:
OPM: TTYZ: NEPOA: HAU:: “ And they did
it all with the Saints and with the ‘ Watchers’ in
those days,”’—of “fallen” ones (ibid. v. 5), UPn:
Aho: RLP: aC: ALLO: ATTYL: AML: AA:
ser: AMC :: “O Enoch! scribe of righteousness!
goand make known to the ‘ Watchers’ that they have
left Heaven,” etc. It does not, however, occur, we
believe, in the “‘ Ascension of Isaiah,” which is a book
of a probably very early date; nor yet in the “ Di-
dascalia Aithiopica;” except as an adjective applied
to a “ Bishop” (p. 25), ete.
““Sed Vigiles,” says J. Morinus, “ Syris post Da-
196
Further, we may take comfort from the thought
that they are all ministering Spirits, sent forth, by
our Heavenly Father, “to minister for them who
shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14). “ αἴροντες
nielem sunt celeberrimi.” In the Lib. Adami, Yas
generally means “a guardian Angel” (as, 6. g., lib. i.
Ῥ. 148)—“ How shall we speak of the superiority in
180] Lu052 J] ska8 «Ὁ hye rah? 5 .e.20 nature
of the guardian Angel who goes about, over that of
the word of a Speaking Spirit?” and ii. 318, ete. Ina
Syriac Liturgy, quoted by J. Morinus (in Appendix ad
vol. ii. Codic. Liturg. Eccles. Univ. p. 242), we read
that the choir of “ Watchers” is higher in rank than
even the Cherubim and Seraphim. oowso aw
Vs}, 02 ja; .olac\ od ~23,%0 lo ono
qatar, [Aaojdo . odor . «δὴ 855}; Ἰϑοῖϑο + Ay
ior TAX Soohtotor Jas . cawitoto LK uoni0.20
yasato {80 W «οὐ o1n;80 =“ God is far from the
sons of men in appearance, and they cannot com-
prehend His majesty; nor yet the Seraphim with six
wings, nor the Cherubim with four faces. These
carry his throne, and dare not look at Him. But as
to the Watcher who never slumbers, no man can
describe his office.” This order, however, varies,
even in the Syrian Church.
In S. Ephrem, H. vii. “ adv. Scrutatores,” God is
called Vase {so “The Lord of the Watchers,” —
‘
197
ἡμᾶς καὶ κουφίζοντες πρὸς τὴν θείαν πολιτείαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν
γῇ διατριβῆς ---- καὶ ἐκφαίνοντες καὶ διωγγέλλοντες ἡμῖν τοὺς
πρὸς εὐζοΐαν κανόνας," says even the heathen Hierocles
(com. in Aur. Carm. iii. 2). And, lastly, we ought
to take warning, and live in awe of that cloud of
unseen witnesses, who at present, either grieve or
rejoice over us, according to our walk in life. For
we shall one day see them face to face; and before
them, assembled on high, our Lord Jesus—at whose
ineffable name they bow (St. Luke, xii. 8, 9)—will
either “confess” or “ deny” us !
b) As regards the Greek notions of Θεός, we find
that, as Joh. Lydus (de Mens. p. 52, ed. Roeth.) says :
Θεῶν δὲ (τῶν ἐν γενέσει) τριὰ γένη οὐράνιον, ἐπύγειον, Kal
τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων." “created gods are of three kinds:
H. iii. adv. ib. Yas pido ou {soo —“* before
whom the Watchers (are ashamed) veil their faces.”
(See also Sermo v. throughout.) Ibid. Can. Funeb.
xv. 38, }o%) So yaw Yas “ἃ Watcher will
awake thee out of thy sleep.” See also Opp. T. ii.
455, 456; but especially 546, etc., and Severi Patr.
lib. rit. p. 110,— ow ToiXsoo ae ai0;S0;80? ow
qatoato, “praise belongeth to Him whom Watchers
extol, and whom Angels serve,” etc. 5. Ephrem
was followed or carried to his grave by Angels and
‘‘ Watchers.” (See Acta 5. Ephremi. Opp. v. ii.;
and Assem. B. Or. y. i. 52, sq.)
198
of Heaven, of the Earth, of the middle space.”
“© ἐξουσία τοῦ ἀέρος," Eph. 11. 2. “ ἐναιθέριοί τινες δυ-
νάμεις," (according to Plato, ἄλογοι δὲ εἰσιν καὶ ἀσω-
ματοι)--- ἄγγελοι (οὐράνιοι) ---ἥρωες (ἐπίγειοι),---δαίμονες (τῶν
ἀμφὶ ἄκρων ἀπέχον) (Hierocl. iii. 2). But over all
those— ἀνωτάτω δὲ πάντων νοῦν ἐναιθέριον εἶναι Oedv,”—
“God exists, a celestial mind above” (Stob. Ecl. Ph.
i. 2), to whom they—“ plebs Dei” (Ov. M. 1)—are
subject. For (Orac. Vet. p. 43)—
“ Aaipoves of φοιτῶσι περὶ χθόνα καὶ περὶ πόντον,
ἀκάματοι, δάμανται ὑπαὶ μάστιγι θεοίο."
6) As regards ηλνα- ΤῈ, we see him alone “ Shang,”
supreme over the other five Te’s or “elements,” and
over the inferior gods, who preside over the air, the
land, and the sea. He alone is mentioned in the oldest
annals of the Shoo-king, in the Le-ke, and in the works
of Confucius; while the other Te’s are not once alluded
to in those books, and only in later and modern
works. But the Earth, the air, and the sea, are in
their turn peopled with innumerable “ Spirits,” some
of which are of the Earth, and are called She, or
Shay; and others of the air, and are called “ Sun.”
“ Sun,” then, in our opinion, is no substitute for
Et, Exontm, and ὁ Θεός. As an “ emanation” from
Heaven, and as the “ Ling” of the “ Yang” principle,
it answers to Πνεῦμα or Δαίμων; and, perhaps, not
even to that. For Aaiuer is declinable, and like Θεός,
both masculine and feminine: it may be either 6 or
ἡ δαίμων, οἱ δαίμονες, etc. Whereas Surv does not even
a ee
199
possess the shadow of “personality” which exists in
the masculine ὁ δαίμων ; but it is indeclinable, and
can take neither article, number, nor gender. The
Arabic word = “ genn,” “ genii,” which, like Suny, |
is a collective noun, or τὸ δαιμόνιον in a collective
sense, seems to come nearest to it.*
* Asa collective noun, Sain seems to correspond
best with the well-known Arabic wr “ venii” (from
we “to cover, hide; to be obscure and indistinct”).
It is thus described by Djeuhari:— iJ jad!
Wy Oy com li fog ἘΝ dats, δὶ
wy 4, it “(The race) ‘genn’ is opposed to
man. One ‘genn’ is called se: The race of
them is so named bevanse they are dreaded and not
seen.” (See Ch.-Yung. c. xvi.) They, too, like
Sutin are both “good and bad,” 6. σ., in the Coran
(Sur. 72, 11, 14), one of them, says gL 9 Ul,
oss ΠΡ US WSIS ων», Listy pyallal! “Behold,
some of us are good, and some of us, on the
contrary, are wayward,” etc. The bad ones are
called “Sheitan,” as Djeuhari says:—— y+ οἷν
οὐ. νῶν, οὐδ, sl ot Ope ok SS,
What “ Sheitan” means is ae known. Every one,
either among the “genn,” men, or beasts, who is
either rebellious or disobedient, is a ‘“‘ Sheitan,” devil.
(See H. Reland. de Rel. Muham. p. 185.)
200
XII.
It is evident that, were it only for the writ of
accusation against Socrates— ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης, ods μὲν
ἡ πόλις νομίζει Θεοὺς, οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ ΖΔαιμόνια
εἰσφέρων" (Xenoph. Μ. i. 1)—there existed ἃ differ- |
ence among the Greeks between θεός and δαίμων;
although they were sometimes apparently taken one
for the other, 6. g., Il. (ρ΄. 98),— é
““ ὁππότ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐθέλη πρὸς δαίμονα φωτὶ μάχεσθαι
ὅν κε θεὸς τιμᾷ, τάχα οἱ μέγα πῆμα κυλίσθη,᾽" κ.τ.λ.
We have seen the original meaning of θεός, oii
what is that of δαίμων ?—hic, fateor
—“ male laxus
In pede heeret calceus”
So that, with Max. Tyrius (Ady. a’) “ περὶ μὲν δαιμόνων
ἀμφισβητῶν, λόγον λόγῳ φέρω, Kal ἀνέχομαι τὴν oTdow.”—
“ Φέρε, (Aoy. κζ΄) ἐρώμεθα τὸ δαιμόνιον---ὧδέ πως, κατὰ τὸν
τοῦ “Ounpov ᾿Οδυσσέα----(Οα. ἕξ. 150.)
— Θεός νύ τοι ἢ βροτὸς ἐσσί-----καὶ
“Εἰ μέν τις θεός ἐσσι τοὶ οὐρανόν ἐυρὺν ἔχουσιν,"
οὐδὲν δεῖ λόγων᾽ ἴσμεν γὰρ τὰ σά; ͵
“Εἰ δέ τίς ἐσσι βροτῶν τοὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ ναιετάουσιν,"
5 nm n 7 c / 3 eS \ Ee J
ἄρα τοιοῦτον χρῆμα, οἵον ὁμοπαθές τε εἶναι ἡμῖν καὶ ὁμόφωνον,
Ἀ A x \ \ f > Ld n a \
Kal σύγχρονον, ἢ κατὰ τὴν δίαιταν ἐφέστιον τῇ γῇ, κατὰ δὲ
201
τὴν οὐσίαν κρεῖττον αὐτῆς ; ob γὰρ σάρκες ai δαιμόνων φύ-
σεις, κι. τ.λ.
But even “7d ὄνομα," is by no means so “δῆλον as
our author seems to think it (roy. é.) [5 it from δάω or
Salm? “ut adeo δαίμων proprie sit ‘ distributor,’ quod
in deum et genios recté quadrat?” (Et. Gr. V. Lennep)
“aut ut Possidonius dicit—quia ex eztherea substantia
parta atque divisa qualitas illis est?” Macrob. (Sat.
i. 23.) Or rather, as Plato says (Cratyl. sec. 33, ed.
Bek.): “Τοῦτο τοίνυν παντὸς μᾶλλον λέγει (Ἡσίοδος)
ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, τοὺς δαίμονας, ὅτι φρόνιμοι καὶ “ δαήμονες᾽
ἧσαν, ‘dalwovas’ αὐτούς ὠνόμασε," «.7.r.* And Hesiod,
Op. et D. 314: “δαίμονι δ᾽ οἷος eoba”—* δαίμων hic
non est deus, sed ‘ peritus,’ ‘consultus.’”—Hesych. :
“ἐ δαίμων, Sajpov.’—Et. M. pp. 35, 24: “ δαίμων ὁ adro-
SiSaxros.”—Archilochus in Plut. Thes. 5: “ταύτης γὰρ
κεῖνοι δαίμονές εἰσι μάχης," etc. (See Gottling’s note,
lc.) We confess, however, that at the risk of ‘ ὁποῖόν
φασι τὴν γλαῦκα πάσχειν, πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀμαυρουμένην,᾽
being thought an owl in broad daylight,” “ εἰ γάρ τις
i
* Compare δαήμων with the Sanscrit “ D’HIMAN,”
“ sensible, wise, learned;” a name of. Vrihaspati, the
preceptor of the “gods,” etc. Thus, in Nalod.—
tava shishyena d’himata,” etc., ‘by thy clever pupil,”
etc. Or, compare according to Prof. Bopp. (Comp.
Gr. v. i. p. 164, Eng. tr.), δαίμων with ATMA; which,
in spite of the manifold virtues of the Zolic digamma,
appears somewhat far-fetched.
202
ἐς τὰς Πλάτωνος φωνὰς ἐμπεσὼν ἑτέρων δεῖται λόγων ----οὐδ᾽
ἂν τὸν ἥλιον ἴδοι ἀνίσχοντα" (Max. Tyr. λόγ. a’ )—we
might wish for some other etymology for δαίμων ;
and one clearer than Plato’s words.
Whatever, then, be the origin of ““ δαίμων," let us
see in what respects it corresponds with Sain in
Chinese.
1) The primary meaning of δαίμων, as distinguished
from Θεός, seems given in these words of an uncertain
author (Stob. Ecl. Phys. lib. i. ii. 39):—* Θεὸς μὲν
av ἐντι, καθάπερ ἐν ἀρχᾷ TH λόγῷ εἶπον, αὐτὸς yap ἀρχὰ
καὶ πρῶτον" θεῖος δὲ ὁ κόσμος," καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ δινεύμενα
πάντα" ὡς ὁμοίως τε καὶ δαίμων ἐντὶ ἃ ψυχὰ, αὐτὰ γὰρ
ἄρχει καὶ κινεῖ τὸ διόλω ζῶον. “ God, then, exists, as I
said in the beginning of my argument; for He is both
the beginning and the first principle. The universe
is of God (θεῖος), as well as whatever moves in it;
while Δαίμων (the deity) is the soul thereof—(‘ Sarva-
gatam Brahma,’ ‘the deity that pervades all things’
Bhag. G. iii.)—for it rules and sets in motion the —
whole living world; which world, said Thales (Diog.
L. lib. i. 1, 6), is ἔμψυχος καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρης."
This acceptation of δαίμων exactly agrees with the
(ἐποίησεν ὧν τόν Se τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἁπάσας τᾶς ὕλας ----
ἕνα, μονογενῆ, τέλειον, ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ λογικόν ----οὔ ποκα
φθαρησόμενον ὑπ᾽ ἄλλῳ αὐτίω, ἔξω τῷ αὐτὸν συντεταγμένω
θεῶ, εἴ ποκα δήλετο αὐτὸν διαλύεν." (Timeus Locr. de
Anima M. p. 545, sq. ed. Gale.)
203
collective sense of “ Kwet-Saun,” “ ψυχαὶ καὶ δαίμονες"
(Philo J.de Gig. 4), which, as we have seen (Ch.- Yung,
9. xvi.), “you look for and cannot see! you listen to
and cannot hear !""-- +’he-wuh, Θὰ] puh ko ee! Yang
yang hoo! joo tsae ke shang; joo tsae ke tso yew.”—
“they enter into the very essence of things and cannot
be separated from it! Like the waves of the Ocean,
in amplitude, they are above us, and they surround
us on every side!” 4Δαίμων, then, corresponds not only
to the Arabic wr) but also to the Vaidic “ Vishwa-
devas,” or “ PE-SHIN”; for, says Iamblichus (de Myst.
sec. 1. ¢. Vi.): “ τίθεμαι δὴ οὖν TO μὲν δαιμόνιον φῦλον
ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ πληθυνόμενον, καὶ συμμυγνύμενον ἀμυγῶς," etc.
It also partly agrees with the words of Seneca (Ep.
Ixy. 24),—* quem in hoe mundo locum Deus obtinet,
hune in homine animus; quod est illic materia, id
nobis corpus est.” And Lucan. (Phars. ix. 578),—
“ Estne dei sedes, nisi terra, et pontus et aér,
Et celum, et virtus —
Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque mo-
veris.”
nam et “ Jovis omnia plena.” (Eclog. vi. 60.)
But here “ Deus” is “ animus”; whereas “ Sum,”
which “the-wuh” gives entity to the material world
(like δαίμων the ψυχὴ thereof), is inferior to SHANG-
ΤῈ (see Shoo-king iv. 1), as δαίμων (ἡ ψυχή) is to
“Θεός ὅς ἐποίησεν τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν. “Οἱ
δὲ τὴν δαιμονίαν ἐπιστασίαν διαλαχόντες," says [Δ70}}}}1-
chus (de Myst. sec. i. 6. xx.), “ μοίρας τινὰς μεριστὰς
204
τοῦ κόσμου κατατεινάμενοι ταύτας KatevOivovow,”—(comp.
“sse-fang SHIN,” above, p. 149). “““Ὅλως δὲ τὸ μὲν
θεῖόν ἐστιν ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ προϊστάμενον τῆς ἐν τοῖς
οὖσι διατάξεως," κιτιλ. For, let this important fact be
well borne in mind, even if “Surin” be granted to
correspond, as it does, in Chinese ideas with ἡ ψυχὴ
τοῦ κόσμου of Plato, or with his “ πνεῦμα" (in Phi-
lebus), where he mentions “ τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων
φύσιν ἁπάντων τῶν ζώων Πῦρ, καὶ Ὕδωρ, καὶ Πνεῦμα
καθορῶμέν που καὶ Τῆν, that the comparison goes
no further. For, he plainly says, “Ὅτι σμικρόν τι
τούτων ἕκαστον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔνεστι καὶ φαυλὸν, καὶ οὐδαμῆ
οὐδαμῶς εἱλικρινές dv.” “that we are individually made |
up of a small, insignificant, and not particularly
pure, portion of each of those four elements”: and
says again, “7d παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σῶμα dp ov ψυχὴν φήσομεν
ἔχειν; δῆλον Ste φήσομεν." ‘Shall we then say that
our body contains no soul? Of course it does.”
πόθεν, ὦ φίλε Πρώταρχε, λαβόν. “From whence, my
good friend, does it receive that soul—eizrep μὴ τό γε
τοῦ παντὸς σῶμα ἔμψυχον ὃν ériyyave;—if it be not a
part and parcel of the body of the universe, which
is ἔμψυχον, endowed with a soul?”
According to Plato, then, our ψυχή is a part of the
πνεῦμα, Or “spiritual essence,” in the Universe. But
SHIN is not that as regards ourselves; for our “soul”
is “ Kwei,” which is always distinguished from SH
(see Le-ke, c. xix.); where “ Kwei” and “Shin” are
explained as differing materially; “‘ Suzy,” as a part
of ourselves, being taken to mean our “ spirit,” and
205
‘good or bad spirits,” dependant on health. More-
over, SHIN, even as “ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου," is not the active,
intelligent “ Ling,” which, we presume, takes the place
of the “mind” or Νοῦς, in “ Σοφία, Νοῦς καὶ Ψυχὴ" of
Plato’s world. Now we read in Lao-Tsze (c. iv.),
that Suis may lose “Ling,”—or Ψυχὴ, τὸν Nody—
either by accident, or, as the Chinese say, from “old
age”! What, then, remains of Surin to make it into
“ Gop,” the Micuty, the Evertastinc GOD ?
2) According to Xenocrates (Stob. Ecl. Ph. i.2,29),
there is:—@eés, in Heaven ;—@eo/ ᾽Ολύμπιοι, the hea-
venly bodies; and—érepor ὑποσέληνοι δαίμονες ἀόρατοι,
“other sublunary Δαίμονες, Genii, who are invisible”
—the power of the air, as Porphyrius says: “ κατά-
Takis —Ocdv μὲν πρὸς τὰ αἰθέρια, δαιμόνων δὲ πρὸς τὰ
ἀέρια, ψυχῶν δὲ τῶν περὶ γῆν, αἰτίαν civae”—(ap. Iambl.
de Μ. ο. viii. 5).
This, too, agrees with Sury, as being also “ sub-
lunary Spirits.” For they are every where in the
atmospheric regions; and, as such, they are, as we
have seen, always worshipped last of all,—Suane-Ts,
in the Imperial Heaven, being worshipped first.
3) As θεός and θεοί were generally held to be ἀγαθοί
— ἐπειδὴ πᾶς θεὸς wyabds” (Sallust, 6. xii.), the Greeks
ascribed calamities, and other divine judgments, to
that “irresistible,” (πανδαμήτωρ, Soph. )—“ unseen,”
(δαίμων δ᾽ ἄϊστος, Pind.)—and “ intermediate,” (τοῦ
μέσου γένος, Hierocl.)—agency between the gods and
men—6o Saiwov;—which, being unknown and ill-defined
(ἡ ἀόριστος δυὰς, Saluov—according to Pythagoras),
206
they alternately courted—* ἵλαος, ὦ δαῖμον, ἵλαος,"
(Soph. )—or dreaded, ‘al, ai, ai, ai δαῖμον, δαῖμον᾽"
(id.), as either propitious or adverse ;
“ Δαίμονά τ' ἠγάθεον, Aaluova πήμονα θνητῶν."
(Orph. H. i. 31.)
This δαίμων, or δαίμονες, were the agency, as well as
the instruments of the justice of the gods,* who made
over the wicked to “ Δαίμοσι κολαστικοῖς" (Sall. ο. xiv.
ad. f.) for punishment; while as regards the good
(Pyth. v. 164),— |
“ Διός τοι νόος μέγας κυβερνᾷ
Aaipov’ ἀνδρῶν φίλων"
According to the Greeks, then, a man’s daily lot in life, |
was either “‘ δαίμονος ἀγαθοῦ," or “δαίμονος κακοῦ, Sdcts.”
(Creuzer, 5. iii. 776, sqq.) “Εἰ γενναῖος, ὡς ἰδόντι," said
the stranger to Cidipus, “ πλὴν τοῦ δαίμονος." And
“ ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐν τῷ δαίμονι
(Cid. Col. 76, 1446).
So also “ good fortune” was “6 δεξιὸς δαίμων" (Callim.
καὶ τῇδε φῦναι χἀτέρᾳ"
* Δαίμων γάρ τις μεγίστη τέτακται ὦ τέκνον, says Hermes
(ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. lib. i. 8, 52), ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παντὸς
εἱλουμένη, πάνταπερ ὁρῶσα τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς γινόμενα ὑπὸ τῶν ἡ
ἀνθρώπων. Καθάπερ οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς θείας τάξεως ἡ πρόνοια καὶ
ἀνάγκη τέτακται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
τέτακται ἡ δίκη, ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοῦσα. ᾿Εκείνη μὲν γὰρ
κρατεῖ τὴν τάξιν τῶν ὄντων ὡς θείων ---Ηἰ δὲ δίκη τέτακται
τιμωρὸς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἁμαρτανόντων ἀνθρώπων, K.T-r.
207
Cal. C. 32); and “ bad luck,” on the other hand, was
(Pind. P. iii. 62)—
* Aaipwv δ᾽ ἕτερος
ἐς κακὸν Tpéyrais” ——
This, again, agrees best with Surn, which, we have
seen (pp. 144, 151), is both “good” and “bad”; both
served and dreaded. But it does not agree with
SHanG-Tz, who like 6 Θεός, is always good; and like
ὁ Θεός, also, is only feared and worshipped.
There is also a coincidence between ἀγαθοδαίμων and
κακοδαίμων, as applied to a man’s estate, and the fami-
liar expressions “Sang,” or “ Shang-Shin,” mournful
or wounded spirits, and “tsin-Shin,” bright or good
spirits, etc. “Shin” is also used as a term of endear-
ment, ¢. g., “ Shin-niu,” ‘“‘ divine maid,” “ Shin-seen,”
etc., like “ δαιμόνιος" in 6. g. Odyss. xiv. 443, “ δαιμόνιε
ξείνων," etc.
4) Those δαίμονες were not θεοί For ὁ Θεός, we
have seen repeatedly, ‘“‘made them all”: “οὐκ ἀνθρώ-
mous ἔδει καὶ ζῶα μόνα ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ θεούς τε Kal ἀνθρώπους,
καὶ Δαίμονας" (Sall. c. xiii.), ete. In like manner,
SHIN, in itself, is not even “a god,” much less “ Gop.”
For we read in the Hwa-tseen (see above, p. 148), of
“ SHIN-SEEN,” or “ Hill-genii,” who are eight in num-
ber, and (like ὁ or ἡ δαίμων) both male and female.
(Comp. the “ Pattinee Devi” of Ceylon, Uph. H. B.
p- 54.) They, however, “ are not considered as gods,
nor worshipped, nor have they temples erected to
them,” says Dr. Morrison, Dict. vol. i. p. 70.
208
5) Since δαίμων was ἄϊστος, “hidden,” and dépurros,
“indefinite,” the “agency,” δαίμων, was often iden-
tified with the “agent” Θεός, who was equally hidden
and unknown, and it was then mistaken for him.
Thus, ¢.g., perhaps, Marcus Anton. (de seipso. lib. v.
8) says, ““ ἔξεστί μοι μηδὲν πράσσειν παρὰ τὸν ἐμὸν θεὸν
καὶ δαίμονα Thus also, Ζεὺς ἀγένητος, who “κυβερνᾷ
δαίμονα," is himself addressed as δαίμων (which is ποίη-
μα τοῦ Θεοῦ --- Διός), by Cleanthes (H. in J. 14),
“ οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον,"
and in Il. a. 222, Homer calls all the θεοὶ νὸς.
also δαίμονες.
εἰς ἡ δ᾽ Οὔλυμπόνδε βεβήκει ‘
δῶματ᾽ és αἰγιόχοιο Ads μετὰ δαίμονας ἄλλους."
This exactly suits “Sin.” For, as we have seen
above (p. 155), and Le-ke (c. xvi.), although we
read, “raise your thoughts to Heaven, ‘ T’HEEN tsei
SHIN, and from Heaven to Surv,” yet the col-
lective noun, ‘“‘ Surv,” does not here apply to any one
in Heaven in particular; but it applies to Saane-Tx,
and to his eight attendants and their satellites, col-
lectively. Even in this passage, then, which seems
at first sight to favour the advocates of Sar, Sam
not only can not mean ὁ Θεός, but it does not even
stand for θεός ; it honestly means only “ τὸ δαιμόνιον
φῦλον," or, at best, the ‘Geol ᾿Ολύμπιοι." We are, we
confess, really at a loss to know why the term, which
even according to its stanchest advocate means
‘‘ genii, or demons” (or only “ deity,” Dict. i. p. 178),
209
and can only apply to the whole “plebs superim,”
should be preferred to the term belonging exclusively
to the Chief Ruler in “ Hwang T’heen,” or Imperial
Heaven—aimdbs "Ολυμπος---ἰο SHANG-TE alone.
But when δαίμων was assigned to any particular
object, it then became a “‘personal” Aa/uwv—or “eds”
—‘a god.” Does not this show how men, one and all,
sought a “personal” god? Thus Οὐρανὸς παγγενέτωρ
is also “ πανυπέρτατος δαίμων" (Orph. H. iv.); Φύσις, is
“ἐ πολύκτιτος δαίμων" (ibid. x.)—Anpjrnp, is “ πολυώνυ-
μος δαίμων" (ibid. xl.)—and Νέμεσις is ““πανυπέρτατος
δαίμων" also (ibid. Ixii.), etc.; all, and the like of
which, when once “ personified” after the manner of
heathen nations, by being either worshipped under a
visible, or represented in a material form, became,
each—not “ὁ Θεός, which was One, alone, and above
them all—but only “ θεός," “ἃ god,” or an “ἄγαλμα
θεοῦ," aS, 6. g., ᾿Ανθρωπός τις, ξύλινον ἔχων θεόν---ἔῤῥιψεν
εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος." (15. Fab. 128, etc.) Sophocles (in
Euseb. Pr. Ev. lib. xiii. p. 680, d. ed. Col.) says to
the point :—
“ Eis ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν, εἷς ἐστι Θεός,
Ὅς οὐρανὸν τέτευχε, καὶ γαῖαν μακρήν;----
* See Menand. fr. (Perinth. 3. ed. Cl. p. 148).
“ Οὐδ᾽ αὐτός εἰμι σὺν θεοῖς ὑπόξυλος"---
᾿“ἰ ὑπόξυλα κυρίως καλεῖται τὰ ἀγάλματα οἷς ἐκ ξύλων κα-
τεσκευασμένοις ἐπιπολῆς ἐπελήλατο ἄργυρος ἢ χρυσός ---
Hermog. ad not. 1. c.
15
210
Θνητοὶ δὲ πολλοὶ καρδίαν πλανώμενοι,
ἸΙδρυσάμεσθα πημάτων παραψυχήν
Θεῶν ἀγάλματ᾽ ἐκ λίθων, ἢ χαλκέων,
Ἤ χρυσοτεύκτων, ἢ ἐλεφαντίνων τύπους.
Θυσίας τε τούτοις, καὶ καλὰς πανηγύρες
Στέφοντες, οὕτως εὐσεβεῖν νομίζομεν."
For, as we have said, generally speaking, ‘ θεός" ap-
pears to have been the “ personal agent,” inhabiting an
unseen abode—oixov θεῶν waxdpov—in Heaven. Whereas
“ δαίμων, aS “Ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου," Was the ‘ hidden
agency, power, or energy,” through which “ θεός"
wrought effectually in the eyes of men. Even the
“ σκοτεινὸς Δυκόφρων" is clear on this point. He ad-
dresses “ Aaipova” as the “agency” (Cassand. 281):
°°) δαῖμον, οἷον κίον᾽ ἀϊστώσεις δόμων,
"Epevopa πάτρας δυστυχοῦς ὑποσπάσας |”
and “ θεόν" (ibid. 909), as the “agent” who “εὖ ῥέπει"
(Asch. S. Th. 21) “ κῆρα, “δίκην δαίμονα,"---
“"Arrny δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλῃ κῆρα κινήσει θεός,
Δυγρὴν πρὸ νόστου συμφορὰν δωρούμενος."
But the “agent eds,” and his “active agency δαίμων,"
being both unseen and unknown, they were often also
both taken one for the other. We find accordingly,
that, in like manner as “ δαίμων" is both masculine
and feminine, (even in Christian writers, ¢.g., Const.
Apost. i. 7, 8, témeruid rap, orAeucn weet)
according to circumstances, so is also θεός. For
instance, in this passage of Lycophron (Cassand.
864),- -
ae. ee hey!
211
[1
οὕνεκα θεᾷ θεός
χέρσου μέγαν στόρθυγγα δωρεῖται κτίσαι."
where “eds” is both feminine (like θεά) and mascu-
line also, exactly after its original “ Drus,” in San-
scrit.
In this sense alone of “a god,” or “idol,” is Samy
an equivalent for “ θεός." For Sumy is, we have seen,
also both masculine and feminine. But the resem-
blance goes no further. For the “ One Gop and
Faruer of all, who is above all,” is always masculine,
and singled out as such by the article ὁ. But Sam
is of both genders. Therefore in this respect also,
Sun is no substitute for Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ.
Again, let it be well remembered, that Surn being a
collective noun, means ὁ or ἡ δαίμων, of δαίμονες, OF
δαίμονες, “76 δαιμόνιον," “ τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον," and more
too, all in one. But we do not often find “ δαίμων
still addressed as “ δαίμων, when it has assumed a
material or bodily form: it is then called “ @eds,” “a
god.” Whereas Surin, whether it be worshipped as
the unseen “ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου---ὁ Saiyev”—or under an
ideal form, as “ Hwa-SHIN,” the “Spirit,” or ‘“ god
of flowers” ;—“ Yue-SHIN,” “god or goddess of the
moon”; or under a visible form, as “ Meaou-SHIN,”
“the god or idol in the temple,” or “Kea” or “ Mun-
SHIN,” the “lares” or “ penates” of the family,—is
still called “Sury,’ whether as δαίμων or as θεός, OF
even as “ θεὸς ξυλινός.᾽
But δαίμων, we have seen, is not “ θεός," although
212
“ θεός," When unseen, is sometimes addressed as “ ὦ
δαῖμον!" For Θεός is “ a&yévyntos”— ὅς Οὐρανὸν τέτευχε,"
etc., whereas “ δαίμων᾽ is “ποίημα @cod”—inferior, like ’
“ Suin,” which, Ching-tsze (as quoted by Wen-
thang, in his Com. on the Ch.-Yung, c. xvi.) says,
“‘SHIN-chay Yang-che ling,” “ is the active energy of
the Yang-principle.” This “Yang,” we have seen, is
superior to the “ Yin”-principle. But both the “ Yin”
and “ Yang” are subservient to T7HEEN, “ Heaven,”
which, says the same commentator (ibid. ς. i.)—*i
Yin Yang woo hing hwa-sing wan-wuh,” ‘ creates the
life of all things by means of the five energies of
‘ Yin’ and ‘ Yang.’” (See below, p. 220, note.) Suzy,
then, is an inferior agency in the formation of Nature.
Yet, according to some, “Sun” is the only term in
Chinese, which expresses “ θεός." (Shin v. Shang-Te,
p- 8, sec. 7; and p. 10, sec. 8.)
Granting, however, it may sometimes do for “ θεός,"
“a god,” when and how will it convey the real idea
of “6 Θεός, 6 ἐπὶ πάντων, ὁ παντοκράτωρ καὶ μόνος δυ-
νάστης" For, we see that “ SuIn-@eds” is not “ 5Η1ν-
’ We have shown, however, that “Sun” is
“ἐ δαίμων;" and that “ SHIN-Saiuev” is sometimes also
“ SHIN-Oeés”; but we'-see that ““ SHIN-Geds”” cannot
always be “ SHIN-daiuwv.” Then,
δαίμων.
“τ per Genium, dextramque deosque penates
Obsecro οὖ obtestor,—”
which is which ?
The writer of Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 11), therefore,
ὙΠ
218
is quite correct in quoting Dr. Medhurst’s words
that “Sur is comprehensive enough, and too much
so”: and he might have added Dr. Morrison’s con-
fession too,—that Surv is “ genii or demons.” For
in the mouth of a Chinese, “GO SHIN,” by which
by or TON, “My God!” is rendered in Dr. Morri-
son’s version, is at least as comprehensive a prayer
as that of Orpheus (ad Mus. i.) :—
“ Zed βασιλεῦ----σὲ κικλήσκω
᾿Ηελίου, Mins θ᾽ ἱερὸν σέλας, ἄστρά τε πάντα —
Καὶ μεγάλους Σ᾽ωτῆρας ὁμοῦ, Διὸς ἄφθιτα τέκνα"
Μειλιχίους τε θεούς -----
Δαίμονά τ᾽ ἠγάθεον, καὶ δαίμονα πήμονα θνητῶν "
Aaipovas οὐρανίους τε καὶ εἰναλίους καὶ ἐνύδρους,
Καὶ χθονίους καὶ ὑποχθονίους, ἠδ᾽ ηἐριφοίτους |”
The foregoing remarks, we hope, may tend to
show,—
{.—That, practically speaking, bs and so are ap-
plied to Gop in Holy Scripture, not as “ generic”
terms, common to Him with others, but to Him
“specially,” as “ The Mighty,” “ The Worshipful.”
—If not, why are those terms not always rendered
by “a god,” and by “θεός, without the article ?
I].—That, in general, Dn ἐξ is not used as a “ col-
lective” noun, nor yet “as a remnant of poly-
theism,” but as an intensitive expression of respect
for bs and ox.—Ie not, then bs, noe, and
DndN, would imply different persons; which is
not the case.
IjJ.—That since those terms apply to one and the
214
same person, they are rendered in general, not by
“ Beds” and “ θεοί," “a god,” “gods,” or “ deity,”
respectively, but by “ὁ Θεός," with the article; Gop.
IV.—That 5x, Hox, DON, Θεός, Devs, and Juprrer,
who is, as Valer. Soranus (in August. Civ. D. vil.
ὁ. 9) says :—
“ Juppiter omnipotens regum rerumque detimque
Progenitor, genitrixque defim, deus unus, et
omnis,”
are not “proper” names, like (in one sense)
“ JEHOVAH,” but are names of nature and office, of
the “ One Supreme Being,” Gop, who is and was
worshipped as Mighty, Father, Protector, Lord, etc.
V.—That also in Chinese, “SHane-Tr” is not a
“proper” name, but a “ common name,” used as a
distinctive appellative of the “One Supreme
Being,” worshipped as “ Ruler” by the Chinese,
according to their own ideas.
VI.—That ‘“ Suiy,” on the contrary, is a “ collective”
noun, for “ Spirits,” which—tseih chih eul Shin-
chay wei SHIN—“ are multiplied to the uttermost,”
says Wen-t/hang (Ch.-Y. ο. xvi.); and thus cor-
responds best to “7d δαυμόνιον φῦλον ἐν τῷ ἑνὴ πλη-
θυνόμενον," to yr “ genii,” to the “ Nat-gods” of
Burmah and of Ceylon, or to “ δαίμων, as “ψυχὴ
τοῦ κόσμου," and sometimes to “ Geol ᾿Ολύμπιοι.᾽"
VIl.—That since “Surin” can never be taken in a
singular sense, except with an adjunct, like “ Yue-
SHIN,” ** Meaou-SHIN,” etc., the “ Sui,” “ Spirit,”
215
or “deity” of the “ Moon,” or “idol” of the
“temple,” etc., it only represents “ θεός" in that
sense, and is not applicable to “ Θεός as ““ Παντοκρά-
twp;” since “ gods” is the plur. of “a god,” and not
of ‘ Gop,” who is One and alone. For SHIN is an
inferior agency, like Sa/uev,—inferior to T’HEEN,
Οὐρανός, which is identified with SHANG-TE, (like
δ Dan. iv. v. 23, with wy v. 22, etc.) 6
Ὕψιστος,--ΖΕΥΣ -- Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ.
XIV.
We now come to the last, and, perhaps, also, to
the most interesting part of our investigation; that
is, to the application of SHIN, or SHANG-TE, to the
rendering of the term “GOD” in Holy Scripture.
The passages brought forward are taken, almost
promiscuously, from a beautiful edition of the Bible in
Chinese, in 21 vols. 8vo, printed at Malacca, in (the
seventh year of Taou-kwang) 1828. It is, if we
mistake not, one of the “old paths,” about which so
much is said by a correspondent in “ Shin v. Shang-
Te,” p. 19. Let us follow them awhile.
I.—First, then, as regards ON bal 5
Gen. xiv. 20. trophy ΓΞ “ Blessed be the
Most-High God.” Sam. a2x0rK ὙΖΠΓᾺ ‘Nata
‘“ Blessed be the Powerful in strength.” Arab.
216
Οὐ old! “the Powerful, the High.” Syr. Peschito,
Taasso Jord} οσι yaz> “Blessed be God Most-High.”
This is rendered in Chinese by Chih-Shang-SHIN,
“ Most-High Suin”—relatively, of course, to all other
“ Shins.” Thus, when Sun is used alone, as, 6. 9.»
Gen. i. 1, it must necessarily convey the idea of a
Suv (or god) inferior to the “ Chih-Shang-Sumy,”
Most-High “Surin,” or “God.” That some such
confusion is inevitable, is clearly shown by the ex-
pressions familiar to every Chinese,—“ Shin-kiun,” or
“ Choo-Shin” (as we find it in the Shoo-king), 7. ¢.,
“Lord over Shin’; the latter of which is a title or
office, which is conferred by the Emperor on one of
his ministers. So that in this Chinese Bible, Sumy,
who created the Heavens and the Earth, is inferior,
not in power only—(and who can adequately render
the sustaining idea of ΤΠ) 28 ?),—but in rank also,
to “chih-shang SHIN.” How much better to render
“Ex,” “the Mighty God,” by ὅβηλνα- ΤῈ, who is above
all, in power and strength; and. for troy ‘“Most-
High,” to adopt (perhaps) “ Hwang-T’heen,” or in the
very words of the Shoo-king, “ Hwang-T’heen SHANG-
TE,” “ Imperial-Heaven SHane-Tn”; ὁ. ¢., ϑηανα- ΤῈ,
“highest in the Heavens”; especially, as immediately
after (v. 22) we read, YN) DYDY m3p “who owns
the Heavens and the Earth.” This, as it is rendered
in the Chinese, ‘ Chih-Shang-SHIN 'T’heen-Tih-che-
Choo,” implies to any Chinese who has learnt to read,
—not from books published by missionaries, but from
his own classics,—nothing else than that ‘“ the Most-
217
High Sum” is alone “ Lord of Heaven and Earth.”
So that plain “ Sur,” wherever it occurs, although he
is said, like Viraj (Laws of Manu, i.), “to have made
the world,” is inferior to “ Chih-Shang-SHIN,” as Viraj
also is inferior to Brahma, from whom that inferior
creator came forth. It reminds one of the Greek
proverb,—
“ Aaiwovas ἀπελαύνει ἄλλον ἄλλῳ."
The Chinese, moreover, is a rendering of the
English version, and not of the original, although it
professes, in large characters, on the title-page, to be
from the “ pen-wen,” “ the radical text.”
Gen. xvii. 1, "I OyI “I am the Almighty
God.” In this rendering of the original, either the force
of “IY is impaired, or that of 7&8 is lost altogether.
The LXX. omit "1%; and in this they are followed
by the Ethiopic, Slavonic, Armenian, and Coptic ver-
sions. The Samaritan reads ‘XP73A ‘XZMR ‘X34,
exactly like the Arabic Alt poll “the Powerful,
the Sufficient” (as if it had read, ‘TY αὐταρκής).
The Peschito gives the Hebrew Jo\} aaa] bh? b}
ΓΤ am God El-Shaddai.”
The Chinese reads, “ tsuen-neng-che SHIN,” “ the
SHIN of complete power” (Almighty). So that when
“‘ Sain” stands alone, it must be “one Sun” ‘not so
powerful as the “Sum of complete power.” This is
self-evident. For it does not follow, that because
“‘the Most-High God” conveys to our mind no idea
of “superiority” over, but only an “ attribute” of,
218
“ Gop”—for that “God,” and the ‘ Most-High God,”
imply to our mind one and the same Person,—it is
so in Chinese. Far from it. For whereas we never
had any idea of God apart from the “ only true God,”
the Chinese have had, and have, every kind of idea
of God, except a correct one of the true God, which
is the only God we know. Their notions and im-
pressions, therefore, must, as regards “ Gop,” be en-
tirely different from ours.
If, then, in order to express our “only true God,”
we adopt a term which in their classical and daily
language is capable of a multitude of different mean-
ings, many of them inapplicable to our “ God,” what
else can happen, but that the Chinese and ourselves
be always at issue on the subject? and that the
idea conveyed to them by us, through this distorted
medium, be anything but the image of the original ?
Clearly, then, if we take “ Sun,” and sometimes
qualify it by adjuncts and sometimes not, when it is
qualified by us, as in this case of “ tsuen-neng-che —
SHIN,” it must convey an idea different from what -
it does when it is not qualified by us,—that is, when
it is left in the state in which it usually occurs in the
Chinese classics. Since, then, when it is qualified, it
must of necessity imply a different person from what
it. does when it is not qualified, nothing remains but
either to qualify it always, or never. If the term be
“appropriate,” it may safely be qualified to convey
a rectified meaning, if necessary; for it will then
always imply the same “ person,” with only different
219
attributes. Thus “ ϑηλνα- ΤῈ," which, like “ Gop,”
is one and not many, may be qualified without risk
of error. If, on the other hand, the term be not
appropriate, no qualification will do. Now, “ Sur”
is, we have seen, “ἃ Host of Spirits,” “good and
bad,” “ genii or demons,” τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον, δαίμων OF
ψυχή with, or without vods—“ an idol,” “a god,”
“breath,” and, may be, “a disordered stomach.”
Can any qualification of ours ever make it into “WwW 5x,
“tHE Miguty GoD OF VALOUR” ?
In the same verse also, ΓΤ", “Jehovah,” is ren-
dered by “ SHIN CHOO,” either “ godly Lord,” or the
“Lord of Spirits.” A Chinese will understand there-
by, either that this “ divine or godly Lord” is some
worthy personage, like Yu (Shoo-king, i. 3), who was
“Shing nae Shin jin,” “ἃ holy and a godly (θεῖος καὶ
δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ) man” ;—or that it implies his office ;—
or that this “ Lord of Spirits” is far higher than
Sun,” Spirits, alone. What a substitute for “I am
THAT I am,” “JEHOVAH”! Better, by far, adopt the
name itself, as the Shang-haé translators have done,
Yay-ho-hwah”; or even, perhaps, borrow it from the
fancied Chinese authority of Lao-tsze, who in c. xiv.,
speaks of three properties of the Taou, “I, HI, WEI”;
in which A. Rémusat and others have thought they
discovered “ Jehovah”! (See Lao-tsze, ed. St. Julien,
p- 46, sg.; and Introd. pp. v. vi. sgq.) This “ SHIN-
cHOoO,” “Lord of Spirits,” moreover, must be a dif-
ferent person from “ SHANG-SHIN,” the “ Most-High
God,” who in Chinese stands, as regards “ Surv,” in
220
precisely the same relation as Suanc-TE does to ΤῈ
alone, when this is applied either to the inferior Te’s,
or to the Emperor. But rather “SHIN-cHOO” will
be to a Chinese only as another name for the “ SHIN-
KIUN,” or “ Prince of Shin,” Spirits, mentioned by
Tai-Shang in the Kan-ing-Pien, as “ standing over
the head of men, and writing down all their sins.”
Such confusion is inevitable if “ Sum” be used for
“God”; in which case it is made to represent ‘“ per-
sonal” offices, which as “Shin,” Spirits, j=, τὸ dav-
poviov, OF δαίμονες, it never can do. Nothing is left,
therefore, but to invent new names for “ Jehovah,”
“ Most-High,” etc. But that would be to multiply
“gods.” On the other hand, much ambiguity would
be removed, it appears to us, by rendering the idea
of a “personal” Powerful, or High God, by the “ per-
sonal” Β'ηλνα- ΤῈ, whose very title already tells that
he is both “ Mighty” and “ Most-High”: and since
he stands alone supreme,* his name may be qualified
* The scholiast, on She-king (book v. sec. 8,
od. 2) says, that “ SHANG-TE T’HEEN-CHE-SHIN,”
—‘ Suane-Te is Surin of Heaven.” And Ching-tsze
adds: “i ke hing t*he wei che T’heen; i ke choo-tse
wei che Te.” In Kang-he’s Dict. (Nieou-dsi-hea,
p- 35), he is called T’HEEN-SHIN, and T’7HEEN-CHOO,
— Suin,” and “ Lorp” of Heaven; while the “some
half-dozen” other Te’s (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 4) are
thus mentioned by the same high authority : “ Woo-Te
'
221
by adjectives, as it often is in Chinese classics, with-
out any risk of error or mistake.
The force of bs, “Ex,” in such expressions as, 6...»
NI) Os (Ex. xx. 5), in which the meaning of >,
“Ex,” “God,” is:doubly felt by the side of ‘ jealous,”
(in Arabic, js! old! “the Powerful, the Jealous”),
is quite lost in the Chinese “Suzy.” Even admitting
that “Shin” might stand for “ God,’ what is the
jealousy of “ Suun,” “ genii or demons,” which is
only “fiendish spite,” to the “righteous zeal” for
good of the Miguty Gop ?
And in Deut. vii. 21, 810) 511} Oy, “the great
and terrible God,” (in Arabic «ὁ κα} -Aadl od,
“the Mighty, the Magnificent, the Terrible” ;—words
which even “sound” great and terrible), the force
of bs, Et, is, of course, utterly lost in Chinese—as,
indeed, in English too. For even “God” is no ren-
dering of 98. It conveys the idea of the “ person,”
though not of his attribute of “ power” and “ might.”
But not a vestige of either the “person,” or of his
Shin-ming,”—“ The five Te’s is a theological defini-
tion.” When Confucius was asked the name of the
five Te’s, he replied: “ T’heen yew woo hing: kin, mo,
shwuy, ho, t’hoo, fan shih hwa-yuh i ching wan-wuh, ke
Shin wei che woo-Te,”—‘' Heaven has five elements of
operation; metal, wood, water, fire, and earth, where-
with he transforms, supports, and perfects all things.
Those Sur are the ‘five Te’s.’”’
222
“attributes,” is left in “Sut,” although both one
and the other are found in “‘ SHane-Tr.”
In the sublime passage, Deut. xxxii. 4, the force of
by in MOS Os, “the Mighty in Truth,” is also lost,
except in French and in Arabic,. which reads,—
νι 40 lll, “the powerful in” (or “ possessor
of”) “ Truth.” Dwell awhile on the immutability of
purpose in “MOS Oy,” and then turn to its sub-
stitute in Chinese, “ Shin shih-che SHIN,” which, to
an educated Chinese, is a parallel in words and
meaning with this passage of Tai-Shang—(and al-
most every man in China has read the Kan-ing-Pien,
which is sometimes distributed among the people by
rich Chinese, as an act of piety),—“ Keih-SHIN i
Shuy,” “the (Shin) Spirit of happiness will follow
you”: and “ Heung-SHIN i suy-che,” ‘ the (Shin)
Spirit of destruction (or of adversity) will follow
hard upon the thought of evil.”
In Job xxxvi. 5, we read, DN/! ny 32 by, “the
Mighty is great and glorious, and He will not despise
(me).” Arab.—pale!| all! (comp. dle Ue), “the
Magnificent, great and glorious God” is meager and
“powerless” with ‘Surin’; whereas it would afford
comfort to a poor Chinese to believe that the
“Mighty” Ssane-Tz Most-High, looks down upon
him from Heaven, and that He will not despise him
though he be one of the “ black-heads,” or common
people.
In Psalm x. 11.—The wicked saith in his heart,
by mov, “the Mighty hath forgotten”: where
4 os \ i
Pee eS ee Ae a ἐν ee 2) ee
εἶν SB ate
223
was doubtless adopted by the Holy-Ghost in apposi-
tion to ΓΘ), as implying the “power” dreaded by
the wicked, who flatters himself that that Power
hath forgotten him, and he is safe. But in Chinese,
whereas by, “Ex,” would exactly apply to Suane-
ΤῈ, it loses much of its meaning, and all its force, by
being rendered “Suin.” And this applies equally to
every case in which ὰξ is, if we may say, used design-
edly; but, evidently, in no way whatever rendered by
“ Sun ; as, 6.9.5 in (Psalm 1.1), 133 77) pony by,
“The Mighty, the Awful God, the Eternal Onr, hath
spoken, and hath called the Earth,” etc.
In Isaiah xlv. 14, for instance, we read,—Ja JN
poy DES Ν })S) by. Not only is the force of
Os lost in Chinese, but by saying “Surely, in thee,
land, there is Sumy,”—out of thee, no Surn “ Spirits,”
it says what is not true; for Sun is, or are, every-
- where. (Ch.-Yung, c. xvi. etc.) But it would be
both true and intelligible if it were said of Suane-Ts,
worshipped as the true God.
Even in such passages as Judges viii. 46, where
ON as “ god” only, is said of an idol, ϑηανα- ΤῈ would
be much more appropriate than Surw. For ϑηλκα-
ΤῈ being, like by, the name of “the one God,” it
would, in this case, be given in precisely the same
way to a false “Suanc-Tz,” as “Ex” is to a false
‘** Ei”; whereas this can not be said of “ Sun” with
the same justness, since there are more “ Shins” than
one, and they, too, are both good and bad.
This is so obvious, that when En, meant for
224
“God,” is connected with a particular place, as, 6. g.,
Gen. xxxv. 7, ‘‘ The God of Beth-el,” the translators
take very great liberties with the sacred text. If
consistent with themselves, they should translate
ema Oy by “shin-kea,” or “Shin-Meaou SHIN,”
i. 6... “Shin of the Shin (El) House (Beth), or Shin-
temple”; or, “ Peti-li-che SHIN,” the “Suin” of Beth-
el, taking “ Bethel” asa proper name only, apart from
its intended meaning. But what else can that con-
vey to a Chinese, than the idea of either the patron
“Shin” of a particular village, or, ‘ Meaou-SHIN,”
which is in every mouth, for the “Shin” or “idol” .
of the temple,—may be in the next street? The
translators, however, have cut the matter short; and
they have sunk the beauty of the passage, and the
force of the words Sena S, into the proper name
J-li-pe-ti-li”! How comforting to a Chinese convert!
True, the “ Authorised Version” here, reads ‘“ El- —
beth-el”; but it points to the original Hebrew, “the
Mighty (and faithful) God of Beth-el,” who had been
with Jacob in Padan-Aram, and ever since. We
are led to wonder what the “ pen-wén,” or “ original
texts” of the translators, can have been, besides the
English Version, and perhaps, also the Vulgate.
This is, however, little, to what we read in Chinese,
Numb. xvi. 22. The searching words, “Ὁ Mighty
God!” aarbz5 nina nds Sy—* Awful God of
the Spirits, for all flesh!” are rendered by—*“ SHIN
yu! fan jow shen-che-ling-che SHIN yu!” (a verbal
translation of the Author. English Vers.) “Ὁ Shin!
7
τῷ
5
Pe ee ee Lemar See ee Pe eee
‘
225
O Shin of the ‘Ling’ of all flesh-bodies!”—contrary
to the plain meaning of the Chinese words. For here
““SuIn” is said to be of “Line.” But Lao-tsze
teaches (c. iv.) that “ Live” is of “ Sun”! and that,
moreover, “ Shin” may lose that “Ling”! For
“Shin,” when old, loses “Ling,” say the Chinese.
The translators may, possibly, have held the doctrine
of Lao-tsze in extreme contempt. Since, however,
they find themselves compelled to adopt the same
words that Lao-tsze used, it ought assuredly not to
be in a sense opposed to that which those words have
had, even before the days of Lao-tsze, and for the last
three thousand years, or more.
In Joshua iii. 10. “ Ye shall know that the living
God Ἢ by is among you.” In the Chinese trans.,
“hwa-SHIN,” the “ living-Shin,”—then are the other
“Shins” dead? This cannot be, for Confucius speaks
of their “*’he-wuh” entering into the very essence of
things, and as being manifested, in man, by the
breath of life.” Then what is the “living Shin,” if,
as we see, all “ Shins” have life in themselves, though
not exempt from’old age? But speaking of “Gop,”
it is perfectly true that all other “gods” are either
“dead” or false; for they are “not Gop.” Deut.
XXxll. 21.
In 1 Sam. ii. 8. TIM MYT bs ‘2, “The Lord is a
Mighty God of knowledge,” is rendered by “SHIN-
CHOO, wei chi shih-che SHIN,” “ Shin Lord, is Shin
endowed with knowledge.” It is exactly as if we
said, “SHIN-KIUN,” 7. ¢., “the Shin-Prince’’ is,
16
226
“keih-SHIN,” “the ‘Shin’ of prosperity,” etc., as in
Tai-Shang (K.-I.-Pien, towards the beginning, and
at the end).
In2 Sam. xxii. 32. nim “hap dyn, “Who isa
Mighty God, save the Lord?” In the “ Old Paths,’—
“9 SHIN-CHOO wai, shuy wei SHIN hoo?” “ Besides
the Shin-Lord, who is Shin?” If there is no “ Shin”
but the “ Shin-Lord,” what is “Shin” when it stands
alone?
We might easily weary our readers, by following
up this investigation. We will only once more advert
to the fate of bs, “Ex,” the “ Mighty God,” at the
hands of the friends of “‘ Surv.” And this, in no less
a passage than the sheet-anchor of our faith, Is. vii.
14.—Syney toy np) 18. ΠΡ pn ποῦν mn
“Immanuel ! the γέμμδοι Gov’ with us! therefore
will we not fear, though the Earth be removed!”
The Chinese follows the Authorised Version, in read-
ing at vil. 14, and vii. 8, “Immanuel;” and at
vill. 10, “God is with us.” There is no sufficient
reason for that difference; though the Vulg., LXX.,
Syr., Arab., and Targ. Jonathan ‘do not all agree
together in the reading. Be that as it may, “‘ Gop
with us” is rendered by “SHIN kao go teng,” “ Sun
with us.” What sort of comfort, or of consolation,
can it possibly give a Chinese, to be told that
“Sain” is with him and his? He _ has learnt,
almost with his mother’s milk, that Confucius said
“Sun” are above and all around him (Ch.-Yung,
c, xvi.), “like a flood in abundance”! And if
a
a
’
ἣ
a
πον τὰς aa
Oo wi
7
i
4
;
Ε
997
“with us” mean “in us,” he knows, too, full well, ~~
what is the difference between his being in “sang-
SHIN,” or in “tsin-SHIN,” in “ low” or in “ good
spirits”; for even his breath, which is “ ching-SHIN,”
the “showing forth of his Spirit,’ is quick or slow, ©
according to the mood in which he is!
So much for by and “Snr.” We now come to
consider how far Sar is a fit substitute for nox or
Dvds, Exoan or ELonm.
XV.
In Dan. xi. 36, 37, we have the three terms,
pry, and TON, Os, each intended, no doubt, to be
taken in its own meaning. We do not think that,
were it possible, it would be advisable, to have more
than one term in Chinese to express “Gop,” especially
as the term already in use, Suane-Tr, conveys the
idea of “ Power,’ “ Might,’ and “ pre-eminence,”
implied in “ Ex” and “ Exonm”—not a vestige of
which is left in Surv.
But the expression that the king would speak mar-
vellous things poy by by against the “ Mighty of
Mighties,” rendered by “ Wan-SHIN-che SHIN,” “ the
Surn of ten-thousand Suis,” can only make a strange
impression on the reader’s mind. It must lead him
χὰ
228
to think, either that the “‘ Sun” he is trying to single
out from the rest of the “host of Sum” is no more
than his “ fellow-Sutns,” or else that he exercises a
sort of command over that host. In this case, what
amount of power has “ΘΕΙ͂Ν when standing alone,
for “Gop,” in the Chinese translation? Would there
be the same confusion or ambiguity, if Saanc-TE
were used instead of “Surin”?
In like manner as Sur fails to render by Et, so
also it is, we see, no better substitute for M78 or
prby, except in so far, and no further, as SHIN
inspires a Chinese with a certain dread or fear. For
SHIN” is, τὸ δαιμόνιον, δαίμονες, “ Spirits”; but Exo-
HM, like Ex and Exoag, is a “personal” God. The
meaning inherent in “Suzy,” therefore, must put in-
superable difficulties in the way of its ever becoming
an appropriate term for “Gop” in Holy Scripture.
For instance, Gen. i. 1. ‘In the beginning, 873 4
ὯΠ pby, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” ᾿
Sun, “Spirits,” cannot create. It is the action of 4
a “personal” God. This idea, which is incongruous
with “Surin,” is perfectly intelligible with SHana-
Tr,” who, it is true, does not “ create” ;—for the Chi-
nese appear to believe the Heavens and the Earth
to have been uncreated (Lao-tsze, c. vii. com.), and
sometimes not (ibid. c. xxiii.)* But he “commands”
a > ζ
a ρος . —
* Yet Kang-he (Dict. Nieou-dsi-hea, p. 35) says:
“(@’HEEN-SHIN yin-chuh wan-wuh-chay yay.”—“ As
7
ὲ
a ὧι
να δ μι ως ἀν δ Αμαν,
»" hoy Cie
229
(Shoo-k. i. 5)—and he is “ feared” (ibid. iii. 1)—he
“bestows or withholds his blessing” (ibid. iii. 3)—he
has “a heart or mind,” and “looks into the thoughts
of men” (ibid. iii. 3)—and “ treats them accordingly”
(ibid. iii. 4)—he “orders the affairs of kingdoms”
(ibid. iii. 11, 12; iv. 1)—is above “ Sun” (ibid. iv.
1)—(for “Surin” are requested to assist the Emperor
in fulfilling his responsibilities towards; Suane-Tr,
ibid. iv. 5)—and he “punishes in his anger” (ibid.
iv. 6; v. 5)—ete.
Gen. iii. 5. DOND oOMM, You will be like
(LXX. θεοί, Vulg., Slav., Eth., Engl.) “ gods”—(Syr.,
Armen-) “ God.”—(R. 5: Jarchi, A. Ezra; Samar.
Arab.) “angels” ;—(Chald.) “princes.” “Old
Paths” —“ sse-SHIN,” like Sumy. We presume that
to Surin of Heaven bringing forth all things,” Seu
explains Sun thus: “'T’HEEN-choo heang khe i kan
wan-wuh; kaou yen yin-chuh wan-wuh,”— The Lord
of Heaven sends down a Spirit of life to animate all
things; therefore it is said that he brings forth all
things.” Here we have both T’heen-Shin, and T’heen-
Choo, proposed by the Bishop of Victoria (Shin v.
Shang-Te, p. 19), applied in classical Chinese to
ΘΗΛΝΟ- ΤῈ ; and also Sum (comp. Wen-T’hang, in
Ch.- Yung, c. i.) like “76 δαιμόνιον φῦλον," holding an
inferior place as “ διακονικόν" to SHANG-TE, “τὸ θεῖον
ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ προϊστάμενον dv.” (Iamblich. de Myst.
sec. i. c. 20.) ‘
230
Sun is here meant in its classical collective sense of
δαίμονες, Or θεοί; since whenever ‘One God” is ex-
pressly stated (as in Dan. ii. 26; St. Mark xii. 29;
Gal. iii. 20; 1 Tim. ii. 5; St. James ii. 19, etc.), the
“Old Paths” do violence (as it appears to us) to the
Chinese language, and affix yih, or yih-ko, to SHIN—
* one,” or a “certain Sain.” But if “Sum” is to be
taken for θεοί in this passage, is it to mean “ gods”
also whenever it stands without yih or yih-koP? Would
not ὅηανα- ΤῈ be better,?
Ibid. ν. 9. DYSON mY. “The Spirit of God,” as
rendered in the “Old Paths,” “SHIN-che fung,” the
“wind of Shin,” is, we regret to say, peculiarly ob-
scure. What is it? Why not, at once, follow the
Chaldee, and render it ‘a wind from before God”?
Or with Philo Jud. (De Gigant. p. 58, ed. Tchn.),
* Λέγεται δὲ θεοῦ πνεῦμα καθ᾽ ἕνα μὲν τρόπον ὁ ῥέων ἀὴρ
ἐπὶ γῆς, τρίτον στοιχεῖον ἐποχούμενον ὕδατι." Or with A.
Ezra, “ἃ wind sent by the will of God,” as 5. Ephrem
says (in Gen. p. 8): bso Lom Joa: thoo oo Luo}
:Lloo bya oo}, σιὰγ--- a wind thus blowing ac-
cording to the purpose for which it had been
created” (to dry the waters). Or the translators
might have followed other authorities, and might
have rendered “the Spirit of God” by a still much
more Chinese idea, namely, by “ Ta-fung,” ‘‘a ty-
phoon,” in short, on the chaotic waters! How much
better would it not be to adopt even here, at the
outset, the “personal” God ὅ'ηλνα- ΤῈ, and with
R. 8. Jarchi, to contemplate the “ Spirit of God”—
|
|
231
jpry pepe ov2—“as a dove fluttering, or brooding
over her nest” (an image found in Rig.-V.i. 2; xiv.
4, “vayo na vasatirupa”), and then take “Sun” to —
mean what it is—‘‘a Spirit,” an “emanation” from
Snana-Tre; and thus render this passage by “ 60]
SHANG-TE-che-Shin gaou-chung yu suy-meen yay,” “ the
Spirit of God moved to and fro upon the face of the
waters”—of the waters, first called “ Nara”:
—— nara iti prokta, apo vai Narasunava: |
ta jadasyayanam purvam, tena Narayana smrita: | |
“as being at first created by Nara, the Eternal One;
who made them His first abode, and thence took the
name of Narayana” (Manu-Sanhit. c. i.).
It is evident that the translators took the “ Spirit
of God,” in this solemn opening of the Creation, to
mean “ wind”; from the fact that they render the
“ Spirit of God,” in, 6. g., Ex. xxxi. 3, by “ SHIN-CHE
LING,” the “spiritual efficacy” of Sary. This phrase
is classically correct; and, therefore, it is, in words
and in meaning, precisely the reverse of Numb.
xvi. 22. The translators, therefore, contradict them-
selves entirely. One reading only can be correct;
the other, therefore, is wrong. For as “Ling is of
Shin” (see Lao-tsze, c. iv.), “Shin cannot be of
Ling,”* which is said to be the case in Numb. xvi. 22.
* Kang-he’s Dict. (Seuh-dsi-chung, p. 93), says,
“Shin Ling yay,” “Shin is Ling”; and explains
“Ling” to be,—Yang-che-tsin-khe yue, “Shin”; Yin
232
All this confusion proceeds from the use of “ SHIN”
in our sense of “‘ Gop,” which it never had.
Again, Gen. vi. 3, “ And the Lord said”— send 3
pbyd DSI myn, “My Spirit shall not always strive
with man,” is rendered by “Wo SHIN che fung,”
“ My wind of Shin,” etc. What idea can this possibly
give of the original, or, indeed, of any thing? “ My
wind of Shin,” for “my Spirit”! It is painful to
read the Word of God thus handled. But when one
che-tsin khe yue “Ling.” The spiritual essence, or
“pure breath” of Yang (the creative, bright prin-
ciple in nature) is called “Shin”; while the spiritual
essence of Yin (the obscure, passive, female, priti-
ciple), is called “Ling.” From whence it is clear,
that since “ Ling” belongs to a principle opposite to
that of “Shin,” when Kang-he’s Dict. further says,
“Ling Shin yay,” “Ling is Shin”; Shin is here to
be taken as an adjective, meaning “ spiritual,” as’
opposed to “ material.” From this authority alone, it
is clear that fan jow-shen-che Ling che Shin yu! (Numb.
Xvi. 22) is absurd, and cannot possibly be understood
by a Chinese.—Compare with the Chinese notion of
the soul, etc., the words of Hermes Trismegistus
(Poemand. c. x. 13, ed. Parth.), “Wuyi δὲ ἀνθρώπου
ὀχεῖται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον᾽ ὁ νοῦς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ, ὁ λόγος ἐν
τῇ ψυχῆ, ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι, τὸ πνεῦμα ἐν τῷ σώματι;"
and ibid., 17, “ ἔλαβεν οὖν (νοῦς) ὥσπερ περιβολὴν τὴν
ψυχήν.
ον νεῶν τον en or Re
2338
is further called upon to receive such renderings,
without asking any question for conscience-sake,
under the heavy penalty of ‘‘disregarding the Word
of God altogether” (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 10), then
private judgment rebels in good: earnest. All we.
can say is, that, if such a translation of “‘ My Spirit,”
said by God, rests on good authority, it must be one
of which the way-faring men in the ‘Old Paths”
have alone the secret.
Likewise, in Deut. xxxiv. 9, 235 AN, “ Spirit
of wisdom,” is rendered in the Chinese τόνος by
*‘ Chi-che-fung,” “the wind of wisdom.” We do not
find in Kang-he, any thing to sanction the use of
“fung” for “Spirit”; although it says that ‘“fung,”
“wind,” is the result of “ disagreement,” or of
“anger” between the Yin and the Yang principles!
In 1 Sam. x. 10, however, this same DON AM, is
rendered, “ SHIN-che Shing-SHIN.” The holy Sum
(Spirit) of Sumy (Spirit or “God,” as meant here).
Thus the same word, “Shin,” is taken in two dif-
ferent senses in a sentence of four words!’ One is
meant for “Gop”—the other for God’s Spirir! [5 it
not hard upon the poor Chinese, to give them such
riddles to make out? But in 1 Sam. xvi. 13, 14,
the same “ Spirit of the Lord” is rendered again
differently : “‘ SHIN-Choo-che SHIN-fung,” “ the divine
wind of the Lord of Spirits”; while in v. 28,---
ony, “the Spirit of God,” is freely translated (as
also in v. 13, 14) by “Yew SHIN-che go SHIN,”
“ from the evil Shin (Spirit) of Shin (Spirit)”! So
234
that within a few verses, the same word, “ Sutn,” is
by the translators held out to the Chinese as a sub-
stitute for “Gop,” and for His “Spirit”; and that,
too, both good and bad!
No wonder that “ Spirit” should have given the
translators so much trouble. It becomes in their
hands almost optionally, “fung,” ling, khe, go-Shin,
“ Shing-Shin,” etc.,—“‘ wind,” “ intelligent and active
soul,” ‘animal spirit,” or “breath,” “ evil Shin,” and
“holy Shin,” ete. All this confusion of ideas is the
result of choosing a term which means “ Spirits,” in
order to express a “personal” God. Would it not
be more intelligible, because more correct, to sub-
stitute “‘Suane-Tr” for “Sain”? and to translate
“ Spirit” in all those, and similar instances, by
“ Shin” or “ Ling,” according to the context, as
“ Spirit emanating from God”?
If those combinations appear so incongruous, what
can a Chinese gather from, 6. g., Psalm xlii. 9,—
go tsiang yu SHIN, go pwan-chay yen. “1 will say to
Sumy (Spirit) My rock?” In Psalm Ixxiii. 26, the
English (not the Hebrew) is rendered SHIN, go sin-
che li! “Shin! strength of my heart!” while the
“Hebrew reads, *gab-ny, “Rock, strong-hold of my
heart.” But in Psalm Ixxviii. 35, the Chinese ren-
ders OWS, “their Rock,” by “ pwan-shi,”’ “ Rock of
stone.” There is a very sudden transition from a
“ Spirit” to a “ Rock,” and that of “stone,” too.
But not so to ON, or py, the Mighty and Most.
High Suane-Tr.
235
We will not weary the few readers we may have,
with further investigation of this kind. It only now
remains that we should mention one or two instances
in which DION, “God,” governs a verb in the plural.
For instance, in Gen. i. 26, where God says,—
DIS mvp, “Let us make man,” etc., the “Old
Paths” read, ‘ Yew go-teng tsao jin-luy choo go-luy
siang,” ‘ Let me-kind (us) make man-genus, like the
image of me-genus,” (us).
This is a verbal rendering of the English version,
and not a literal translation from the Hebrew. For
though “Yew” sometimes means “to let,” it is never,
we believe, used in Chinese, as a sign of the impera-
tive. Then, “ Go-teng,” “ me-genus,” said by “ Sum”,
what else does it mean in Chinese, than the Sur
Spirits, WF genii or demons (even according to Dr.
Morrison), mentioned by Confucius in the Ch.-Yung,
and in the Shoo-king, as innumerable? But whether
my refers to the plurality of persons in God, or to
“ Angels” in company with Him,* certain it is that
*‘so-teng” can only refer to a host of “Shin” or
* As the Samaritan, which in Gen. ix. 6, reads,
399 ον ‘AMI Ασα (God) made man
after the similitude of Angels; and in Carm. Sa-
marit. xii. 18, 19.—Chald. 7x, “ Gods.”— Arab.
Whine dete dGjull ἔμ (God) “made him after the
similitude of Angels ;—to rule”—(endued with
power).
236
“ Spirits.” It would seem better, assuredly, to adopt
SHane-Tr, the term for a “personal” God, which is
ready to hand. And since “Go,” in good Chinese,
means both “I,” and “we,” it might be left as it is,
in order to avoid the ambiguous affixes, “teng” or
“uy,” which, in connection with “Sun,” a collective
noun, must tend to a confusion of ideas, if not to
favour polytheism in the mind of a man already in-
clined to it.
In Psalm exxxviii. 1, where pry is generally
rendered by “ Angels”; Syr. Ja\so $0,0; or, as the
Chaldee reads, 8*3°7 bap, “before the judges,” the
Chinese has, tsae choo SHING-che ts’heen, “in the
presence of all Shins”—which must lead to a mis-
conception in the reader’s mind. As also in Psalm
Ixxxii. 1, where “ Surin” standeth ko SHIN-che ‘chung,
‘tin the midst of Shins”—of the “ host of Shins,” ete.
- In Psalm Ixxxii. 6, we read: “ eul-teng nao SHIN-
luy yeou ΘᾺ] chung nae chi Shang-che-tsze pei.” “ You
are Shin-genus (gods), and you all are (son-class),
sons of the Most-High.” This passage seems of itself
to call for the use of “ SHanc-Tx,” who, as we have
seen, has a “ yuen-tsze,” “august son” upon earth ;—
τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. Whereas, as it now stands in
Chinese, either the Most-High is not “Sur,” or
“Sun” Spirit, has sons,—a statement which is
doubtless by no means clear to the Chinese reader.
(See also Gen. vi. 2, where “ Shin-che tsze pei,” “ the
sons of Shin,” must be equally ambiguous. )
Lastly, in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where phy ory,
Pee ace oe ΠῚ
“ΨΥ “ΜΝ
237
“‘oods ascending,” refers to the ghost of Samuel, the
translators have erroneously adopted “ Kwei-Shin,”
which means nothing else than the “ Souls-and-
Spirits,” which are constantly worshipped (see Ch.-
Yung; Shoo-king, and Le-ke, etc., throughout) ;
whereas they probably meant “kwei” alone,—which
means the “soul of the departed.”
We see that we cannot depart from the “ usus et
norma loquendi,” without defeating our own ends, by
creating endless confusion in the reader’s*mind.
Unless, indeed, we can, like the author of ‘ Delphi
Pheenicizantes” (p. 21, sg.), find the secret of show-
ing that two opposites are identical, when he tries to
prove that Joshua and Apollo are one and the same,—
Joshua because he “ saved” the Israelites, and Apollo
because he “ destroyed” the ’Anakim!
XVI.
Let us now examine briefly, how far “Sum” can
supply the place of Θεός or ὁ Θεός.
St. Matt. 1. 28. μέθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. “ Old Paths”
read, “ SHIN Καθ go-mun,”—‘“ Shin with us”; whereas
the Shanghaé translation has, “tseih SHANG-TE go
Καθ yan,”—“ Shang-Te with us”; much better, both
in sense and grammar.
238
Ibid. iii. 9. δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων,--- SHIN
neng yew tsze ko chi,” etc.—‘ Sun can from these
stones,” etc. (translated from the English). It is
much better rendered-in the Shanghaé translation:
“ SHANG-TE neng peen tsze chi wei.”—‘' SHANG-TE
can make these stones to become,” etc.
Ibid. 16. εἶδε τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ Old Paths,”
“SHIN che shing-SHIN.”—‘“ the holy Sam of
Suin”; (same confusion in St. Luke, i. 47.) Shang-
haé v., “ SHANG-TE-che SHIN,”—“ the (Shin) Spirit
of Shang-Te.”
Ibid. iv. 3. εἰ vids εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘Old Paths,”
“ SHIN-che tsze,”—“ the son of Shin” (Spirits >).
Shanghaé y., “joo SHANG-TE tsze,”—“if thou art
the son of ὅηλανα- ΤῈ" : more grammatical, and borne
out by the Shoo-king, v. i., as we have already
seen.
Ibid. v. 4. διὰ στόματος Θεοῦ, etc. ‘Old Paths,”
“ Chuh SHIN-kow-che yen,”—“ (Every) word coming
or walking out of the mouth of Shin.” Shanghaé yv.,
“ SHANG-TE so ming,”—‘ What Shang-Te has com-
manded”: much better Chinese, and more intelli-
gible.
Ibid. v.10. Κύριον τὸν Θεόν cov προσκυνήσεις. “ Old
Paths,” “Choo eul SHIN,” etc.—“‘ the Lord thy
Sun,” etc. Shanghaé v., “ Choo eul-che SHANG-TE,?—
“The Lord thy Suanc-Tre”: much better. For in
this place, Sum is clearly one of the ‘“ Host of Shin,”
qualified, or singled out by “ Choo,” “ Lord.” Where-~
as Suanc-Tr being one and alone, the epithet
ses ea ΤᾺ ΨΥ itn Ale
eta ee | ETT hie Te
Peer aS ORE oe ee Sa eC) det es ae a eer re δ κε
ΤΥ oh id bell a eee
239
“ Choo” creates no confusion of idea; for ‘“ Choo,”
Lord, belongs already to the “‘ Supreme Ruler.”
Ibid. v. 8. τὸν Θεὸν ὄψονται. “seeing” agrees better
with Suane-Tr, a personal God, than with “ Sumy,”
a Spirit (>, by nature invisible).
Ibid. 9. viol Θεοῦ κληθήσονται. Shanghaé v., “ SHANG-
TE tsze,” - sons of SHANG-Tr”: classical, and better
than “ Old Paths,” “SHIN-che tsze pei,” (son-class)
“sons of SHIN.”
1014. 34. θρόνος ἐστὶ τοῦ Ocod,—suits better the
“Supreme Ruler,” Suane-Txz, than the collective and
indefinite noun, ‘“ Surv.”
Thid. vi. 33. βασιλείαν τοῦ Ocod,—agrees also better
with “Smane-Tr,” as “throne” does, than with
“Surn,” “ Spirit.”
Ibid. viii. 29. ἸΙησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ SHANG-TE
tsze,»—" son of SHane-TE”: classical, and perfectly
intelligible; since the phrase, “ SHANG-TE yuen tsze,”
“ the chief son of SHANnG-Tx,” is found in the Shoo-
king.
Ibid. ix. 8. ἐδόξασαν τὸν Ocdv,—“ they gave glory
to SHane-Tz,” the “ Supreme Lord,” is more natural
than “ to Shin.”
Ibid. xiv. 33. ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ vids εἶ ov. Shanghaé
v., “ Chin SHANG-TE tsze,”—“ truly, thou art the son
of SHane-Tre”; readily believed, though, perhaps,
not understood, “ Verily thou art a son of Sun,” “a
Spirit,” will startle, and rather shake than win the
heathen’s belief.
240
Ibid. xv. 3. τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Shanghaé yv.,
“ SHANG-TE keae,”—“ the commandment of the ‘ Su-
preme Ruler’”: ‘“‘Suanc-Tx,” is assuredly more to
the purpose than, “the commandment of SHIN” (>)
Spirits or genii). :
Ibid. xvi. 16. ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. “ Old
Paths,” “hwa SHIN-che-tsze,”—“ son of the living
Shin.” Are there any dead “Shins”? The Shang-
haé v. renders, “yung sing SHANG-TE tsze,”—“ the
son of SHanG-TE who lives eternally”: there is no
ambiguity here. |
Ibid. xix.17. Ei μὴ εἷς Θεός. Classically rendered
in the Shanghaé v., “ Wei SHANG-TE θὰ] e,”—“‘ only
Suane-Ts, that is all”: very well. In “Old Paths,”
“‘ Besides Shin, there is no good”; no rendering of
the Greek.
Ibid. xxii. 16. τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Shanghaé v.,
“SHANG-TE Tao.”—“ the way of Suane-Tr.” Al-
though this phrase does not, that we are aware of,
occur in classical Chinese, yet “ T*heen-Tao,”—“ the
way (or Providence, or Rule) of Heaven,” is so con-
tinually forthcoming in the koo-wén, that “ the way
of Shang-Te,”—“ Hwang-T’heen SHANG-TE,” will be
readily understood. Not so, the “way of Shin”
(Spirits).
Ibid. 80. ὡς ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ SHANG-TE-che sze,”
—the ambassadors of ϑηλνα- ΤῈ: very natural.
But what is the meaning of the “ Old Paths,”—“ the
ambassadors of Shin” (Spirits) ?
Thid. 87. ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου. We must
* ton
ΤῊΣ
Ὃ #
7a
ὩΣ
te
a
ἣν
241
love a “person.” ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, therefore, is more ap-
propriate than “ Sur.”
Ibid. xxiii. 22. ὁμνύει ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. “The
throne” of ‘“ SHane-Tx,” is natural. For, as THEEN-
che-SHIN, he rules in Heaven, and is for that reason
styled (Schol. She-king, book v. p. 24) T’HEEN-che
CHOO-TSE,—“ the Lord Governor of Heaven.” But
the throne of “ Surv,” what is it, but the stand on
which kea-SHIN—“ the household god”—is seated?
Ibid. xxvii. 46. Θεέ μου, Θεέ μου, ἱνατί με eye. “Old
Paths,” “ Go SHIN! Go SHIN!” is quite objectionable,
if not offensive. We have seen that “ Shin” means
Spirit,” “the Spirit in man.” So that “ Go Shin!”
“My Shin!” can mean nothing else than “ My Spi-
rit!” especially when said at the last extremity.
Whereas, “ My Suanc-Tx!” is an exclamation liable
to no ambiguity.
St. Mark, iii. 35. ποιήση τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ The
will of the Supreme Ruler, SHana-Tx,” is classical,
and more intelligible than the will of a Spirit, Sam.
Ibid. v. 7. υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. “ Old Paths,”
“ chih Shang-SHIN-che tsze,”-—‘‘ son of the Most-High
Shin.” We have seen above (p. 216), that this must
create confusion. But there can be no ambiguity if
SHanc-Tr be used, for He stands alone. Besides,
“ ὕψιστος" is not true of “ Sur,” which +’he-wuh,
enters into the very nature of created beings.
Whereas, T’heen, yew san-chih-san T’heen; yuh-hwang-
ta TE-CHOO tsae tsing-T7HEEN.—“ As to Heaven,
there are thirty-three Heavens; and the Perfect,
17
242
Imperial, Great Ruler, Lord, dwells (in the highest
of them) in the azure Heaven” (Dr. Morr. Dict. i.
577.)
Ibid. xi. 22. ἔχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ. Shanghaé v.,
“Tang sin SHANG-TE,”—“ You ought to believe
(or to have faith in) Suane-Tr.” The “Old Paths”
translate the English verbally,—“ have faith in (or
to) Sur.”
Ibid. xvi. 19. ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The right hand
or the left, is more applicable to Suane-Tr, sitting
upon his throne, in his kingdom, than to Sam,
“¢ Spirit.”
St. Luke, i. 6. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, may also be said
more appropriately of a “ personal God,” than of
Sui, “ Spirit.”
Ibid. xi. 20. ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ. If “finger” is re-
tained, it can only be with “Suanc-Tr.” Shang-
haé v. has “ Show,” “the hand,” for “power.” The
‘Old Paths,” more freely, “i SHIN-che che,”—‘ by
the express will of Surv.”
Thid. 28. τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. “ The word of SHANG-
Tx,” is better than “the word of Surv.”
St. John, i. 1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ Λόγος, is remarkably
well translated in the Shanghaé v. by “Taou.” Τὺ is
unintelligible in the “ Old Paths,” which read “ yen,”
τὸ λαλεῖν, for ὁ Adyos.
Ibid. iii. 84. δίδωσιν ὁ Θεός τὸ πνεῦμα. Shanghaé
v., “Suanc-Te gives him the Holy-Spirit” (Shin).
“Old Paths” read, “ Surn gives him the Holy-wind” »
(fung)! .
ἘΞ ee ee ee ee
{
oe ee ee aren,
See eee Ae al
243
Ibid. 36. ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, agrees better with SHANG-
ΤῈ than with Sui. |
Ibid. iv. 24. πνεῦμα ὃ Θεός. This is a passage likely
to test the relative merits of Sumy and Suane-Tr.
Shanghaé v. reads, naturally and clearly, “ SHANG-
TE nae SHIN,”—‘ ὅβανα- ΤῈ is Suv.” The “ Old
Paths,” “SHIN wei Ling,’—‘“ Shin is Ling”; which
would have been more classically said, “Shin Ling
yay”: in the very words of Kang-he’s Dict. (art.
Shin; and above, p. 139; and at p. 150), where we
saw that Shin may lose his spiritual life or soul,
“ Ling.”
Ibid. v. 18. πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν Qedv—icov ἑαυτὸν
ποιῶν τῷ Θεῷ, are expressions which agree better with
the “personal” Suanc-Tr, than with the “ideal”
SHIN.
Ibid. iv. 29. Maoh λελάληκεν ὁ Θεός, is the act of
a “personal” God. “Tur Spirit,” however, “ said”
to Philip and Peter (Acts vill. 29; x. 195 xi. 12).
“A Spirit” may ‘“ have spoken” (Acts xxiii. 9), and
even “cried” (St. Mark ix. 26). But a person
“ speaks” as “ Tur Spirit” gives “ utterance” (Acts
ii. 4), or “moves” him “ to speak.”
Ibid. x. 33. ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν, is more applicable
to Suana-Tx than to Sun.
Ibid. 34. ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε, cannot but bring a
smile on the countenance of a Chinese, who reads in
the ‘Old Paths,” “Isaid” ye are “ SHIN-pei,” a class
of Sur (Spirits). But he will understand at once
the reading of the Shanghaé y.,—“‘I said, tsaou wei
244
SHANG-TE hoo!”—“ Ye are of the same order as
SHAnc-TE.”
Ibid. xiii. 3. ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν
ὑπάγει, is plain as regards “Suane-Tr”; for in the
Hiao-king (c. ix.), we find that Wen-Wang, phei
SHANG-TE, “associated with Suane-Tr” during his
life, until after death, he, phei-heang, “was deified in
his presence” (see also Dr. Morr. Dict. ili. 589); but
it is unintelligible as regards “ Surv.”
In Acts xiv. 11, the excellence of Saane-TE over
SHIN is very apparent. They said: of θεοὶ ὁμοιωθέντες
ἀνθρώποις. “Old Paths,”—“lee-SHIN,” the order,
series of Surin, Spirits; whereas Shanghaé v. reads,
“choo SHANG-TE,”—“ Shang-Te’s,” which exactly
renders οἱ θεοί in the Scriptural sense; since, ac-
cording to the Shoo-king, She-king, Hiao-king, Le-ke,
and the Sse-shoo, to have believed in more “ SHANG,”
Supreme “TE” than one, would have been as hea-
thenish, as to believe in more than one “ Θεός, is in
our own eyes.
Rom. i. 7. ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, is more applicable
to him who has a “ yuen tsze,” or “chief son,” than
to “ Sury,” “Spirit.” And the expressions,— δόξα
Θεοῦ ;---βθέλημα Θεοῦ ;---δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ;—rd χρηστὸν
τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---προσωποληψία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ :;--τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
Θεοῦ ;---ἄδικος ὁ Θεός ;----ἀνοχὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---ἐπωγγελία τοῦ
Θεοῦ ;—ayarn τοῦ Θεοῦ ;---πιστὸς ὁ Oeds,—and the like,
are far more intelligible when said of the “ personal
God,” Suane-Tx, than of “ Suv,” Spirit. But what
are those expressions in importance to these, the key-
uss eS 4
‘
245
stone of our Holy Faith :— ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ"
(2 Cor. iv. 4)—* εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου" (Col. i.
15)—and “ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ" ( Heb. i. 3)
—‘ the express image of His Person”? where
“ SHIN-che siang,” ‘‘ the image of SHIN,” or “ wo-hing
SHIN-che siang,” “‘ the image of the immaterial (dopd-
tov) SHIN,” would have scared Confucius. Whereas
he would have been prepared to hear it said of
“ SHanG-Tr,” whom he worshipped as an invisible
‘person,’ whose “ yuen-tsze,” first-begotten son, he
also knew personally.
In Rev. xi. 13, and xvi. 11, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, is
rendered i the “ Old Paths” by T’HEEN-che-SHIN,
and by T7HEEN-SHIN. But this, in Chinese, means
either collectively—1) ‘the whole senate of celestial
gods,” or singly—2) Suane-Tr, and—3) the Sun.
We saw above (p. 220, note), out of the She-king,
that ὅηλνα- ΤῈ is T7HEEN-che-SHIN. And in Kang-
he’s Dict. (art. Shin) we read, T’HEEN-che-SHIN, tse”
hoo JIH; JIN-che-SHIN, tse hoo YUE,—‘“ that the
‘Sum’ (Life-Spirit) of Heaven resides in the Sun,
and that of man in the Moon.” The Sun is, for that |
reason, called Tae-Yang, “the Great Yang”; and the
Moon, Tae-Yin, “the Great Yin.”* Very much like
* Kang-he’s Dict. Mow-dsi-chung, p. 19, says,—
**VYin-yay—Tih δου yay; Ts’he taou yay; Chhin ἴδοι
yay.” “The Earth, the female sex, and inferiority,
may be called Yin.” See also Dr. Morr. D. i. p. 581.
1 |
Ι]
“4
246
the Egyptian idea (Hermes, ap. Iamblich. de Myst.
sec. vill. 3), that ἔστι δὴ οὖν καὶ ἄλλη τις ἡγεμονία Tap’
αὐτοῖς τῶν περὶ γένεσιν ὅλων στοιχείων, καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς
δυνάμεων, τεττάρων μὲν, ἀρσενικῶν, τεττάρων δὲ, θηλυκῶν,
ἥντινα ἀπονέμουσιν Ἡλίῳ. καὶ ἄλλη τῆς φύσεως τῆς περὶ
γένεσιν ἀρχῆς ἥντινα Σ ελήνῃ διδόασι. Both Yin and
Yang, however, are subservient to T’7HEEN-che-CHOO- —
TsE,—“ the Lord-Governor of Heaven” SHanc-TE
(above, p. 220, note; and p. 241), who “heang,”
sends them down from Heaven to animate and to
work out Nature.
* The Ethiopians, accordingly, sacrificed boys to
the Sun, and girls to the Moon (Heliodor. Aithiop.
L. x. p. 465, ed. 1630).
+ This is, we believe, the origin of jf, Sumy as
“expansion” ( Shin) of 7, She, in the sense
“of “light from Heaven” (Kang-he, and Dr. Morr.
Dict. art. She and Shin), ὁ, ¢., from the Sun,-who as
Tae-Yang, chief source of light-and-life Spirit, was
styled CHOO-JIH, the.“ Lord Sun” (Le-ke, ο. x.
mae But as in India, so also in China, the Sun,
“Giver of Life,” was worshipped as in a measure
wae: to the One “ Paternal, Protecting Heaven”
(in India, Inpra, 7. g., T’7 HEEN-CHOO, SHANG-TE, in
China), who, in that respect, is held superior to the
Sun. Thus, in Egypt, they said,—@eds ἀρρενόθηλυς dv
> ΄ , ῳ a a ᾿
"--ἀπεκύησε λόγῳ ἕτερον νοῦν δημιουργὸν---θεὸν τοῦ πυρός---
(Hermes Tr. Poem, i, 9)---τὸν ἥλιον δημιουργόν (Ib.
κει SM ν,
—o διὰ».
ε
!
Ps ‘ Ζ
ΨΩ ΝῊ ΝΑ Ὁ ΡΠ ΠΝ eT
247
T’HEEN-che-SHIN, then, said of the Sun, is dif-
ferent from T’HEEN-che-SHIN said of SHANG-TE, and
is inferior to him. For in Chinese as in Greek, Θεὸς
μὲν ὧν ἐντι---ἀρχὰ καὶ πρῶτον,---δαίμων a ψυχὰ, δαιμόνιον
δὲ τὸ σῶμα (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ τὰ τούτω γε πάντα, δι’ ὧν οὕτω
'διαιρὲν, Θεὸν καὶ θεῖον, καὶ δαίμονα καὶ δαιμόνιον (Onatas
in Stob. Ecl. Phys. lib. i. ὁ. 2, sec. 89). Clearly,
then, Suin, though it be the best part of Yang, is yet
but one of the two principles which are inseparable in
giving existence to Nature. And as such, SHIN is
but a part of Him with whom alone is “the fountain
of Life”—one half only of “ Brahma stripunlinga:”
which is masc. and fem. as “ Creator”; and neut.
(sarvagatam Brahma) as δαίμων,---οὐ “ Jupiter, pro-
genitor genitrixque defim”—of DIU-S, Deus, Θεὸς,
** ἀρρενόθηλυς ὧν, ζωὴ Kal φῶς ὑπάρχων᾽" (Hermes Tris-
meg. Poem. ὁ. i. 9, seq.).
Sun, therefore, is no equivalent for Θεός, ὁ Θεός,
Gop, either in meaning or in dignity. And T’7HEEN-
CHE-SHIN, even in the “ Old Paths,” can not be
taken for anything else than for Suane-Tr, the Most-
High.
in Cheremon, Cory’s fr. p. 287). But in Mesopotamia,
where the worship of the Sun probably began, he
was by. or “ul, “the Mighty God”; and there, his
name WHY, told also the nature of the special rites
of his worship. (See Targ. Hier. Gen. xxvi. 10;
Ley. xviii. 14, 20, etc.; and Lib. Adami, i. 212.)
248
XVII.
The above are a few examples only, taken from
the translation of the Bible into Chinese, which is
generally known as the joint work of Dr. Milne and
of Dr. Morrison. They are a few clods of the “old ~
ground on which they stood”—a few steps only in the
‘old paths” which we are told to follow (see Shin v.
Shang-Te, p. 19),—may be, at the peril of our life.
No “new inventions” will satisfy the reverend cor-
respondent, who is quoted as an authority, for he τ᾿
thinks “the old is better.” The “old” is indeed Ἵ
‘“better”—but which?
For Suanc-Tx is the oldest. His worship dates
as far back as.B.c. 2356—(we do not exactly know ,
what took placé in China before that time),—when ᾿
Shun offered, jyrst uy yu SHANG-TE “a special 4
sacrifice to SHana-Tr,” and also to keuen-SHIN, “the Ἵ
host of Surin”; but to these only after he had wor- :
shipped the seasons, hills and rivers;—and last. of a
all. (Shoo-king, book i. ο. ii. Canon of Shun.) It
is, therefore, a very modern, and also, we fear, a
dangerous “invention,” to put the “ aptote”-Suun (as
in the ‘ Old Paths”) in the place of—
1) by, “the Mighty,”—2) TON, “the Awful, pe
3) pry, “the Majestic” Gon. ue
249
4) Θεός and ὁ Θεός, Gop, and Κύριος, Lord,—5) θεός,
“ta god,” and—6) θεοί, “’ gods” or “angels.”
Ἶ 7) Πνεῦμα, “ Spirit,”—of Gop (1 Thess. iv. 8), and
~ that too—8) holy. (ibid.),—9) good (1 Sam.
x. 10),—10) evil (ibid. xvi. 14, 16),—11) of man
(Ecel. iii. 21),—12) Hable to faint (Ezek. xxi. 7),
—14) of beast (Eccl. iii. 21),
15) Πνεύματα “ Spirits”—of angels (Heb. i. 14),—
16) of just-men (Heb. xii. 23),—17) of devils
(Rev. xvi. 13, 14) which are—18) unclean (St.
Matt. xii. 43).
19) πνευματικός (Gal. vi. 1),—20) ἅγιος (St. Mark,
i. 10)—21) θεῖος (2 Pet. i. 3).
22) probably ἄνεμος, since SHIN-fung, Shing-fung,
and Shing-SHIN, are used, it seems, indiscrimi-
nately for Tue Hoty Guost.*
And lastly, in the place of —23) πνεῦμα, 7. 4., φάν-
τασμα, a “ Spirit,” “ ghost,” “ goblin,” or “ phan-
tom” (St. Luke, xxiv. 37; St. Mark, iv. 49).
Is it not evident, then, even to the warmest advo-
cates for Sutn, that a term which assumes in their
hands such protean shapes—from “ The Mighty
Gop” to a “ghost or phantom,” inclusive—is thereby,
a rendered an unfit substitute for ὁ Θεός, the One and
only true Gop? For, it will be granted that—
Ty, TON, pry, and Θεὸς, were applied jirst
ΟΠ Shing-SHIN also reads “holy gods,” in Dan. iv.
8; and “ Holy Gop,” in 1 Sam. vi. 20, etc.
250
of all to the only Gop. Or did the worship of One
Gop, grow out of the worship of “many gods”?
Those terms became “ generic” only when, in process
of time, they were applied by catachresis, to inferior
objects of worship. As Philo (de Somn. p. 464)
Says: “ὁ μὲν ἀληθείᾳ θεὸς εἷς ἐστι---οἱ δὲ καταχρήσει 4
γενόμενοι πλείους, Which “sic fraudibus suis obduxe- Ἶ
runt humano generi tenebras; ut oppressa veritate,
summi ac singularis Dei nomen in _ oblivionem
veniret,’ says Lactantius (Epit. c. xxviii.). For
Θεός ““ ἀρρενόθηλυς av” 18 “ πρῶτος"; and θεοί, θεαί,
θεά, and θέαινα, like dei, dea, diva, devi, are “‘after-
thoughts” of comparatively modern date.* And,
* A clear proof that the worship of Gop dete-
riorated more and more, as it fell lower from the
Unity of the Godhead. (See, e.g., St. Aug. de Civ.
D. lib. iv. c. 11, ete.) Not only did deva-s, divus,
θεός, “Sa god,” become daevas, demon, in Zend., in
Pers. “ div,” Arm. “tev” or “tev,” Edd. Icel. “tiv,”
Mod. Icel. “ dif-il,” a “dev-il” (or evil “ dev’), al-
though derived from the “ Father of gods and men,”
INDRAGNI—DIU-S; but we find the same depre-
ciation of merit in the plural number of even inferior
objects of worship. Thus, for instance, δαίμων, as
(Lat.) “ Genius” (Arab. > “ genn”), is rather
“good” than “ evil.” The Arabic translator of
“Tabula Cebetis,” therefore, renders « δαίμων" and 7
“" δαιμόνιον," not by yy, but by UCL, ηκ Angel”
(pp. 11, 55, ete., ed. Salmas.), as if a “ guardian
251
although in Rabbinical Authors we find the fem.
pl. mins, “* goddesses,” as a term of contempt for
the. ““ gods” of heathendom, yet in Biblical Hebrew
there is no feminine for Os, FN, or pry, Gop,
who has nothing in common with “ gods” and
“ὁ soddesses”; for they are by x. “not Gop” (Deut.
xxii. 21). ody, ND mom ody, (Jer. ii. 11) —
un φύσει οὖσι Θεοῖς" (Gal. iv. 8).
II.—?N, FPN, pnby, and Θεός, then, are not
applied to Gop as “generic” terms; as if He were
“one” of many “gods,” and on a par with them.
But they are each given Him asa “special” “ indi-
vidual” appellative, which was His ere it sank to any
one else. For “gods” is the plural of “a god”; it
cannot be the plural of “Gop,” who, though He be
Turee IN Onze, is yet alone, and has neither dual nor
plural. It follows, then, that—
IlJ.—Since Gop has no identity whatever with
“a god” and “ gods,” the assumption that “Sum” is
a fit substitute for 6 Θεός, because it is a “ generic”
term for “God, gods” (Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 1, 5,
etc.), necessarily falls to the ground. “Gop” and
“goods” are not of the same genus, for he says of
Himself, MTS WS TIT a τὰν Taw”
(Ex. iii. 14); ‘p> Da Ody THY pyr Sy ΘΝ 5
Angel,” (Gw> κι... Whereas “mischief,” rather
than “goodness,” predominates among the plur. .,-,
or “genii,” ‘“ δαίμονες," (deemones,) which became in
Ethiopic δα Ὁ: “devils.”
252
—‘‘ for I am the Mighty, and there is none besides;
I am the Majestic Gop, and there is no One like Me”
(Is. xlvi. 8). We do not, therefore, want a “ gene-
ric” but a “specific’—an “ individual” term for
Him who is One and alone of His kind, SIN MIM 5
nada iy ps odyn,.—“ for Jehovah He is Gop
Himself; there is none besides Him.” (Deut. iv. 35;
Ps. lxxxvi. 10; Is. xxxvii. 16, etc.) ‘“ Neque enim
illa (Dei) sublimitas,” says St. Cyprian (de Idol.
Van. v.) “potest habere consortem, cum sola omnem
teneat potestatem.” But—
IV.—Snurn is both a “ collective” and a “ generic”
noun; and it can not be restricted by any definite
article, which does not exist in Chinese. Clearly,
then—
V.—the only substitute available in Chinese for
the “generic” θεοί, “ gods,” when this is restricted
to one individual by means of the article, ὁ Θεός,"
* The use of the article with Θεός varies in different
writers. For instance, Pindar, a “ pious” poet for
his time, scarcely ever uses the article with Θεός,
either as “ Deus summus,” 7. ¢., Ζεύς; 6. 4.) “ Θεοῦ
poipa,” ‘‘ God’s providence,”—“ Θεὸς ἅπαν ἐπὶ ἐλπίδεσσι
τέκμαρ ἀνύεται," etC., OF aS ““ τινὰ θεὸν," €.9., ** θεὸς γενέ-
σθαι," etc. Whereas Hermes Trismegistus, almost
always uses the article with Θεός. This seems to
argue a later date for his writings; and to justify
Casaubon in bringing the Poemander down from the
times of Moses to those of the early Church.
253
must be a “special” or “ individual” term, applied
only to one Being, and that, too, the highest object of
worship in China. That term is Suane-Te. And if
it be argued, that according to some Chinese philo-
sophers (6. g., Choo foo-tsze) the Tae-Keih, or “ first
cause,” is higher than SHane-Tx, we reply, that Tae-
Keih is not an object of worship. And, that it is
only owing to ignorance on the part of the wor-
shippers of Suanc-Tr, that they admit a higher prin-
ciple than the highest object of their worship. This
only requires to be rectified by teaching.
ϑηλνα- ΤῈ, once adopted for Θεός, ὁ Θεός, Gop, and
Him alone, there will be no difficulty in providing,
according to the context, suitable terms for θεός,
when used in the generic ‘sense of “a god,” “ gods,”
that are “not God.” We are inclined to think,
therefore, that the Shanghaé translators might have
rendered “your goddess,” in Acts xix. 37, by “your
tutelary deity,” “eul shay,” more literally, than by
“your SHAne-Tx,” as they have done.
For in translating the Word of Gop, we are to give
the sense or intention of the inspired author—. ¢.,
the “ literal,” and not the “ verbal” meaning of the
sacred text. We are to render the Hebrew and
Greek idioms into idiomatic Chinese, and not into
expressions of our own, quite foreign to that language.
It is then, assuredly, a great, if not a fatal mistake,
to jumble into one in the translation, both Gop,
““who is Gop alone,” and “ gods,” that are “ not
Gon.” As if Gon, “besides whom there is none else,”
254
and “a god” and “ gods,” that are neither “Gop”
nor “gods,” was a “ genus” like to “man, a man, and
men,” all made by Gop “of the same blood,” and
born of the same man !
And yet upon this the advocates of “ Sain” “ feel
rather confident that Shin will, before long, convey
to the Chinese mind what Θεός did to the Greeks,
and Deus to the Latins, and God to the English,”
ete. (Shin v. Shang-Te, p.8.) What will it be then?
—in Greek θεοί or θεός, always without the article
“75 ἄρθρον τὸν Παντοκράτορα δηλοῦν," as Clemens Al.
says?—and in Latin, what? “quicunque Deus,” as—
« Olim truncus erat ficulnus, inutile lignum,
Quum faber, incertus, scamnum faceretne
Priapum,
Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde ego”—
(Hor. Sat. i. 8.)
or is it not rather ‘“ Diespiter” ? namque—
—‘ Valet ima summis
Mutare, et insignem attenuat Deus,”
Obscura promens.” (Od. i. 34.)
For the manifold aspects of “Surin” in the “ Old
* This acceptation of “ Deus” for “ Deus summus,”
like Ζεύς, appears a strong proof in favour of the
terms ‘‘ Deus” and “ Aets=Zeds” having had the same
origin. If not, and if so be that “ Deus” is derived |
from DEVaA-8, ‘“ Divus,” and not from DIU-S, then
:
oe
ἢ τι
hs:
ie
ib
πον ae Ἃ
pate ee ae
oy- ἡ
«πὴ z i
Αγ ee
2 ΝΣ ΩΝ Oe ΝΞ
255
Paths” do not suit “‘ Deus,” according to St. Cyprian,
who says:—‘“‘ Nec nomen Deo queras, Deus nomen
est illi. [lic vocabulis opus est ubi propriis appel-
lationum insignibus multitudo dirimenda. Deo, qui
solus est, Dei vocabulum solum est” (de Idol. Vanit.
γ. ed. Routh).
And as regards “Gop” in English, to join together
the “ SeLr-ExisTEnT,” “ Erernat OnE” (above, p. 47),
with “a god” or “gods,” the ‘work of men’s hands,”
is, in very deed, to make a “ genus” in which,—
—velut egri somnia, vane
Finguntur species, ut nec pes, nec caput uni
Reddatur forme.—
Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici?”
Yet a “genus” of this kind is to represent the
one personal Gop of the Bible, bs, pdx, ὁ Θεός !
Since, however,—
ViI.—Sum is, even by the showing of the “ Old
Paths,” far better rendered by δαίμων, etc., than by
θεός, the fact of the insurgents (Shin v. Shang-Te,
p- 5) using Suanc-Te for the “ Supreme God,” and
“Sun” for “gods” in general, only shows that they
speak and write consistently with the idiom of their
_ there is no “Gop,” but only “a god,” in the poor
Latin, which has one disadvantage in common with
the Chinese—a great deal of confusion from want of
an article.
256
own language. But it no more favours the advocates
for “ Surv,” however much they may wish it, than
calling Ζεύς, ““ ὁ πρῶτος δαίμων," proves δαίμων to be
Ζεύς. SuHanc-Te being one of the “Spirits” or
‘ sods” worshipped by the Chinese, is styled by them
T’HEEN-SHIN. But since he alone is “Supreme,” he
alone also is worshipped as T’HEEN-CHOO-TSE and
TY HEEN-TE, “the Lord or Ruler of Heaven” (schol.
She-king v. p. 24, vi. p. 3). He, like Ζεύς, is Sau
= Saipov; but “Sum” is not SHane-Tr, 2. 6... not
“specially” ὁ Ὕψιστος, any more than δαίμων is “ spe-
cially” Zets=6 Θεός.
VII.—So far, then, the form of religion of the in-
surgents has this advantage over that of the wor-
shippers of Surin alone,—that it admits of “One
Supreme God,” which the latter do not, since they
worship “Gop” “in every thing.” For—
a) Sun, in Chinese, is applied to the “ deity,” only
because as Ling of the Yang principle, it is, as the
Mandchou Dict. explains it well, “An-i gengiyen
fergouctchoun-be,”—“ the bright and wonderful ele-
ment of Yang.” And Kwer-Suin is also commonly
adopted for “ deity,” as representing the Ling of both
the Yin and of the Yang principles. But this “ bright”
vital principle, Confucius says, t’he-wuh, eul puh ko i
(Ch.-Y. c. xvi.), “forms a part of the entity of
things, and cannot be separated from them.” Wen-
thang (Ch.-Y.c. i.) and Kang-he (Dict. art. Shin)
declare, that this “ bright, vital” agency is “ heang,”
“sent down” by the “Lord of Heaven,” Suane-Tr,
=
λας
4
3
j
ᾷ
4
q
L
Ἶ
᾿
257
to give life to the world; the insurgents probably
believe that; and in their creed, “Sum” holds his
proper place, which is inferior to SHANcG-Tz. But—
ὁ) If “Suanc-Tr” be deposed from his throne in
the thirty-third Heaven by the worshippers of “Sux,”
and “Sur,” a very motley group indeed, be raised
in his stead, then “ Surv,” as that “ bright,” “vital”
principle, no longer ‘‘ comes down” from the “ Lord
of Heaven,” to animate Nature; but it becomes both
“ the agent” and the “agency” at once; and Nature
is no longer the work of a Creating Gop, but every
visible object becomes a part of the deity embodied
in it. Wen-t’hang explains the above passage to that
effect, thus: She ke wei wuh-che-t’he, eul wuh so-puh-
neng i yay,—‘“ This Yin and Yang (Kwet-Sum) is t*he
{flesh and bones, part and parcel) of wuh, or existing
beings ; and these are wuh (living, being), by Kwer-
Sin being inseparable from them.” If we do not
altogether mistake the Chinese text, we do not see
how such teaching can lead to any other result than
to Panturism. But, “ Si mundi animus Deus est,”
says St. Augustine (De Civ. D. iv. 12), “eique animo
mundus ut corpus est—quis non videat quanta im-
pietas et irreligiositas consequatur? Nolo omnia
dicere que possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem
sine verecundia non possunt.”
So long as the Chinese nation exists, and the
Chinese language is read and spoken, so long also will
SHANG-Tr continue the “Supreme God” of China;
as Ζεύς and Θεός, both of like import, were in Greece.
18
258
Owing to the chequered fortunes of the Greek na-
tion, and to its manifold dialects, the Apostles, and
before them the Septuagint, followed the philo-
sophers, who having to choose one of two identical
terms, Ζεὺς and Θεός, both “agents,” chose the one
most in use—@eds. They did not choose the “agency”
δαίμων, although it was “ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου." But in
China there is no choice between two identical terms
for the same Person, Ζεὺς and Θεός. The choice lies
between the “agent,” ὅηλνα- ΤῈ, and the “agency”
Sum; between Ζεὺς a8 Θεός and δαίμων, or τὸ δαιμόνιον.
Much, therefore, depends on this choice, which rests
on the interpretation given by those who translate
into Chinese the words “ Πνεῦμα ὁ Oeds,”’—whether |
“Gop is Spirit”; or “Spirit is Gop.” But, in our
humble opinion, it would be easier to convert the
worshippers of Ζεύς, as St. Paul did, than those of
δαίμων, to the knowledge of the “ One True Gop.”
We cannot, therefore, but agree with a writer
quoted in Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 5), that “plain com-
mon sense is all that is needed,” but, in order to
come to—as it appears to us—precisely the opposite
conclusion to his own. For it does not, as he says,
require “ much depth of learning,” to see, however,
that a “ generic” term, like “ Surv,” does not of itself
define the “ species” or “individual”; that δαίμων, or
τὸ δαιμόνιον, is neither “6 πρῶτος δαίμων," nor “ θεοί"
ἐν nor yet every Spirit Gop, though Gop is a
Spirit. We conclude, therefore, from the showing of
the advocates for “Sum” themselves (unable as we
”
ὁ Θεός,
Pe oS ee kee ΩΝ Mas
'
259
are to discover any other reason), that the choice
of that term is by them made a matter of “ con-
science” (Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 10, 15), principally
from want of a far higher authority in translation—
that is, correct idiom and etymology. __ :
Still, that “conscientious adherence to Sur” on
their part is the less to be accounted for, as the very
makers of the ‘Old Paths,” and leaders of the host
of Surin, whom we are charged to follow (Shin v.
Shang-Te, p. 19, ete.), do not scruple to call him
by no better names than “a deity,” and “ genii or
demons,” as Dr. Morrison does (in Dict. i. pp. 178,
804); while he pays homage to ὅηλκνα- ΤῈ, whom he
styles “God,” and even “ Supreme-God” (Dict. i.
Ρ. 163, and iii. p. 539).
Nay, Dr. Milne even went so far as to inscribe
on the title-page of the edition of the Bible from
which the above quotations are taken: SHIN-THEEN
SHANG-TE k’he-she kew wei chaou-shoo,— The Old
Testament, the revelation of SHane-TE of the divine
Heaven.” But, if SHIN-T’HEEN here, means “Gop,”
as it does in 1 Cor. vii. 40, then this title (if we
understand it aright) will read, in Dr. Milne’s own
words,—“ The Old Testament, the revelation of
Suane-TE who is Gop.”
260
XVIII.
Φ
“Quo nunc certamina tanta?”—“@ ταλαίπωροι"
says even Jocaste to the rival factions of Sun and of
SHANG-TE,—
‘ri τὴν ἄβουλον, ὦ ταλαίπωροι, στάσιν
γλώσσης ἐπήρασθ᾽ οὐδ᾽, ἐπαισχύνεσθε, γῆς
οὕτω νοσούσης, ἴδια κινοῦντες κακά;
“Why quarrel among yourselves, O luckless citizens,
and leave the state to perish?” Earnestly,—Why
do Christian missionaries among the heathen, dispute
among themselves about the God they preach, and
place His Church in peril ?
It is the concourse at Ephesus over again, but
without a town-clerk to make the peace. Meanwhile ~
the tumult increases, though not much to the “ godly
edifying” of Chinese converts, who know “ who ’s
who” of Surn or SHane-Tx, and therefore stand
looking on, amazed at their teachers, who cry,—one:
“Down with ‘Suane-Tre!’”—another: “Up with
‘ Suin-SuHanc-TrE!’”—“ No!” says his fellow, “ Great
is ‘ Surn-T’HEEN!’”—“ Never!” shout a good many
all at once, “ Great is Sain of China! Suny, for ever,
Sain!” while a small knot of men try to raise a
voice of “ Audi alteram partem”! but in vain,—for
the assembly is confused, and some, it appears, do
not quite know wherefore they are come together.
261
Then, one Demetrius (we believe), inveighs against
the Bishop of Victoria (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 19), for
his having proposed “ T’HrEn-Suin” and “ 'T’HEEN-
Cxoo,” as a “ compromise, in favour either of Hea-
thenism or Popery”; instead of respectfully reminding
His Lordship, that both those terms are, as we have
seen, classic synonyms for “Suanc-Tr;” and that
he might as well adopt “Suane-Tr” at once. But
that reverend friend of Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 10),
though “ a man of peace,” is nevertheless “ resolved
to renew the contest.” He therefore makes ready to
battle in earnest, and with great ardour he utters
his war cry,—‘‘ No surrender!” “ No peace with —
Pope or Pagan!”
It is well he should follow the advice of Rabbi
Judah B. Tamai (Pirke Av. V. 20):— “935 Ty ὁ
ΤῊΝ ps5 my “ND No -Sa¥D ΤῊ "222 bp
‘poywaw “Be strong as a leopard; swift as an
eagle; fleet as a roe; and valiant as a lion, to do
the will of thy Father who is in Heaven:” and also
“wise as a serpent,” but “harmless as a dove,” says
our Lord and Master. Let that zealous missionary,
by all means buckle on his harness in the name of
Gop ; then take in hand “ the sword of the Spirit,”
and we trust, also, hide a stout heart under the
“‘breast-plate of righteousness.” For his errand re-
quires it; and even Pindar reminds him that—
ἐς ὁ μέγας κίνδυ-
νος ἄναλκιν οὐ φῶ-
τα λαμβάνει"
262
But as he goes forth to battle, let him not forget to
“be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of
peace”; and not carry on his preaching among the
heathen, as if he were on a crusade against them.
“No surrender!” says the reverend writer.—No!
none to the enemies of our Lord. But as to those
we make for ourselves, how often do they not prove
better than we are! Let us, therefore, understand
against whom we fight. When the soldiers of Christ
look less to themselves, and more to the Captain of
their salvation, many of their own enemies vanish
from before the first encounter; for then the cause is
God’s—not man’s owni—and the day is won. If true
to their calling, the knights of Christ rally round
the standard of His Cross, and not under their own
colours: if they follow Him, and not their own way,
and fight in His name and not in their own strength,
they must overcome, and proclaim victory from the
stronghold of their foe. For the battle is the Lord’s.
He leads His men by day, and watches over them by
night. If they faint, He comforts them. If in delay
they doubt, He bids them be of good cheer. And if
in their last struggle, they stagger at the sight of
death, He prays “that their faith fail not”; while
His hand, riven on the Cross for them, holds out “a
crown of life”; and His gentle voice whispers to
them, as of old to His veteran saint,— ’ApSpitou,
Πολύκαρπε!".---“ Quit thyself like a man, my son! thy
reward is great!”
For, “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit
263
with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and
am. set down with my Father in His throne.” ‘“ No
surrender!” then, for the soldier of Christ ; he must
overcome !—* Θέλεις, says even a heathen, “θέλεις
Ὀλύμπια νικῆσαι; κὠγὼ, νὴ τοὺς θεούς" κομψὸν γάρ ἐστιν.
ἄλλα σκόπει καὶ τὰ καθηγούμενα, καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα: καὶ
οὕτως ἅπτου τῶν ἔργων (Epict. Enchir. c. xxxv.)
Then, “οὕτω τρέχετε," says St. Paul, “ἵνα κατα-
λάβητε." .
(ΝΟ peace with Pope or Pagan!’”—Yea, rather,
peace with both! If the reverend writer has had
experience, either of Popery garbled by designing
men, as in this country, or of Popery as i is
throughout the Continent of Europe, and especially
in that least Popish of all Romish cities, Rome itself,
he can have, assuredly, no leaning towards it. At
the same time, he must have found God-loving souls
in that communion—souls who will be saved, not
through, but, as it were, in spite of their polluted
Church ;—not by their religion, but apart from its
practical workings of priestcraft on ignorance; of
barefaced imposture upon its harmless and willing
dupes. It is not clear, on the other hand, whether or
not that writer feels any sympathy with that “ free
and easy” worship, in which “ familiarity” with Gop
—hbefore whom Angels veil their faces—is taken for
“the spirit of adoption” in sons; forgetting that the
most ‘ dutiful” children, are also the most “ respect-
ful.” But if he be of “that pure and Apostolical
branch of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church,” which
264
inclines to neither extreme, we almost wonder he can
express himself as he does. For he must have learnt
from her, as she teaches her sons to be (St. Poly-
carp, Ep. Philip. vi.): “ Of πρεσβύτεροι δὲ εὔσπλαγχ-
νοι, εἰς πάντας ἐλεήμονες, ἐπιστρέφοντες TA ἀποπεπλανημένα,
προνοοῦντες αἐὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,
ἀπεχόμενοι πάσης ὀργῆς, προσωποληψίας, κρίσεως ἀδίκου----
μὴ ἀπότομοι ἐν κρίσει, εἰδότες ὅτε πάντες ὀφειλέται
ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτίας. Ei οὖν δεόμεθα τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀφῇ,
ὀφείλομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεναι. ἀπέναντι γὰρ τῶν τοῦ κυρίου
καὶ Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ πάντας δεῖ παραστῆναι τῷ
nm fa! e an 4 rn 3
βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστον ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον Sodvat.”
And as to Pagans, who are “alienated from the life
of Gop” only “through the ignorance that is in them,”
what have they done to forfeit all hope of “ peace”
from one of the “same body,” “ partaker,” with them,
of ““Gop’s promises in Christ,”—and to deserve no
pity? Ifa man’s duty be, as Lactantius says (Epi-
tome, ὁ. xxxiv. p. 634, ed. Routh), that “unum Deo
debet ut patri, alterum homini velut fratri. Ab
eodem enim Deo geniti sumus.—Oportet enim scire
nos quid Deo quid homini debeamus; Deo scilicet
religionem, homini charitatem,” what is that same
man’s duty when he goes forth as “messenger of
peace” to those same brethren, sent from Him who
‘is our peace,” and who set His servant an example,
when He came down from Heaven “to preach peace”
to him, who, like his Pagan brethren, was himself
“afar off”? Could he, could any servant of Christ
who feels his own utter unworthiness and his Lord’s
0 gS ot re SNe ie ag
ET Sah SLES = a ee en te ΟῚ.
unbounded love, see, for instance, a Brahman raise
his eyes towards Heaven, in anxious hope of his final
emancipation in Brahm, and asad him, i in fervent
devotion, say :—
ADITI-r-nu patu no, dushtaram tramanam vacha:!
“ May that Erernat ONE (invincible, saving word 1)
protect us evermore!” (Sama-V. i. 4; i. 1, 7.)
mad’hu DIAUR astu na: PITA!
‘“‘May our Father, Heaven, be favourable to us,”
shradd’ha hi te, Mag’havan, parye DIVI.
‘for faith in Thee, O Thou rich in blessings! exalts
us to Heaven” (Rig.-V. 1. 6, xvi. 7; Sama-V. i. 2,
3, 4, 8), without holding out to him the right hand,
with,—“ My brother! let me bring thee to know Him
aright who is thy Father as well as mine, through
His Son Jesus Curist, the Saviour of thee and of me,
poor sinners”? Or could he hear a Chinese, while
kneeling before his idol-god, mutter these words of
“the Master,”—
* Tse joo tsae, tse SHIN joo SHIN tsae,”
“Worship as a reality; worship ‘ the Spirits’ as if
-the Spirits were present” (Shang-L. ii. 1), without
yearning to teach him to worship his “ unknown
God” “in spirit and in truth”?
Let that servant bear in mind his own debt of
talents freely forgiven ;—the account to be given by
the servant “to whom much has been given” ;—the
fate that awaits him “who knew his Master’s will
266
and did not do it” ;—he will then forgive his brother's
debt of a few pence, and love and pity him “ who
knows not his Master’s will.” He will then feel the
beam in his own eye, and think less of the mote in
his brother’s eye; and he will not turn from him,
saying,—We may be brethren, but I see and thou
art blind—‘“ no peace with thee” !—But, thanks be
to God, “the Father of all mercies,” His Church, in
unprejudiced love for every man, whether Jew or
Gentile, whether Puritan, Pope, or Pagan,—though
not for the errors of his creed,—says to him: Prac!
Free pardon and peace with God to us all, who are
all equally under sin, through the atoning blood of
Jesus Curist our Lord.
We would, therefore, gladly ascribe such an ex-
pression as the above, to the trying effects of climate
on the nerves, the temper, the whole being of man.
We fear, however, lest such a sentiment be common
to many who go forth as preachers of the “ Gospel of
Peace” to the Heathen. And although it is not our
place, while working under shelter in the humble
sphere of a country parish, to read a homily on the
duty of being cool and calm, to men toiling in the
heat and bearing the burden of the day, at the post
of honour—the missionary station, yet the question
forces itself upon us,—What becomes of the Apostolic
office of “Ambassador for Christ to the Gentiles”
when undertaken in such a spirit?
It proves a failure, of course. For the fruit of it
is blighted in the seed thereof. Hine “ sunt lacrime
ee eT O's NT ee ΤΡ Meck ς
ares STE Pos) a Pee ee eel
267
rerum.” And why? The fault lies not in the work,
which is “unto life eternal”; neither is it in the
reward, which is “ to shine like a star” in the firma-
ment of Heaven, for ever and ever. The fault is
in the workmen themselves. Many of them well-
meaning and zealous, but misguided, independent,
and as good as irresponsible men, often come too
much in their own name, and often speak too much
their own words. With the best intentions, and
wishing to do Gop service, such men turn their
pruning-hooks into weapons, in order to fight their
own battles; and they make the standard of the
Cross the badge of a crusade, carried by them even
unto the ends of the Earth. For there too, as well as
here, the Church of Christ is rent in pieces by feuds,
in which even the new commandment, “THAT YE
LOVE ONE ANOTHER, AS I HAVE LOVED you,” becomes
a dead letter, and out»of date. There too “man”
eclipses “Gop,” and brings on darkness at noon-
day. And then converts emerging from the gloom
of heathenism, open their eyes to the flickering lights
of human opinions, instead of at once drawing breath
and life in the sunbeams of “One Lorp, one Faith,
one Baptism, one Gop and Fatuer of all, who is
above all, and through all, and in us all.” So that,
when they cry for a draught of living water, the
cup is held to their parched lips in the name “of
Paul,” “ of Apollos,’ and “ of Cephas,” and but
seldom in the one blessed name of “ CHRIST wuo
IS OUR LIFE.”
268
Then the labourers sow, but, of course, in tears.
They pray, as the Athenians did of old:—“ ὗσον,
ὗσον, ὦ φίλε Zed, κατὰ τὰς ἀρούρας τὰς ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ τῶν
πεδίων "ἢ but they receive in answer a few partial
showers only, over patches of the Lord’s inheritance.
Then they look for the fruit of their labours ; and
the Lord of the harvest, in pity, bids them go and
glean over hill and dale a few handfuls of corn,
instead of their reaping his gracious promise of an
abundant harvest, when they bind their sheaves on
high with joyful songs of thanksgiving. And why is
it so? Because, instead of “εἷς ὁ καθηγητὴς ὁ Χριστός,"
there are ““ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι" and ““καθηγηταί," who,
nevertheless, call themselves “ δοῦλοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ," and
who, when their Lord bids them go forth and pro-
claim aloud,—‘‘ Peace! Peace! to him that is far off,
and to him that is near, saith the Lord, and I will
heal him,” say,—‘‘ We give you no peace!” No!
‘‘ Peace on Earth and good-will towards men,”—but
only to those who think as we do! ;
Not so St. Paul. At Athens and at Lystra he
spoke more kindly; he showed more feeling, more
pity. He went through the city as “one bringing
glad tidings of good things”; and his preaching on
the Areopagus was the voice of him ‘who preacheth
Pracre”—even from the citadel of the god of war.
He did not battle with his hearers. But, in order to
preach to them “Jxsus and the resurrection,” he, first
of all, told them he and they were “ brethren,’—
children of the same Father, their “ unknown God”;
eee ee ae
stale Y bt:
whom he, however, knew, and whom he came to
teach them to worship aright. In so doing, he won
their hearts to himself and their souls for Heaven.
He brought them in among “the first-fruits of his
Apostleship”; and they will be gems in his “ crown
of rejoicing” in the presence of our Lord Jzsus
Curist at His coming. That holy Apostle has left
us an example. Let us at least endeavour to be
followers of him, as he also was of Christ.
Our own estimate of antiquity differs also greatly
from that of the reverend writer quoted above. For
his tastes are decidedly modern. He seems to dote on
“Sain,” which is recent as a substitute for ‘ Gop,”
although he is bent on treading in the footsteps of
his predecessors, in paths which he considers “ old
and safe.” But he is, perhaps, not aware that those
“‘old paths” were not made at first by Dr. Morrison,
but. by Jesuit Missionaries! “Idem occurrit,” says
Mr. Callery (Syst. Phon. p. 80), ‘‘ pro Sinica Scrip-
turee Sacre versione que ejusdem auctoris (Dr.
Morrison) calamo tribuitur; etsi de facto sit mera
publicatio versionis a Jesuitis relictee, cujus manu-
scriptum Anglis officiose traditum fuit ab incauto de
Propaganda fide Procuratore, J. Marchini.” (See
also that popular and valuable work, “ The Bible of
Every Land,” p. 4.) i
Such is that ‘old ground,” such are those “ old
paths,” which only lead to another “Shibboleth” at
the fords of the Yang-tsze-keang, where, it appears,
many a good heart is slain in cool blood by the ruth-
270
less “men of Surv.” And yet, it is they, and not the
“Bishop of Victoria,” who force upon others “the
simple and chaste style of the Jesuits” (see Shin v.
Shang-Te, pp. 10, 19), by defending as “a matter of
conscience,” from which there is no appeal, a version
of the Bible, originally made by the Jesuits them-
selves, and apparently not much improved by those
who revised it. They fold to their bosom the very
style they denounce in others ; and blame the Bishop
of Victoria for what they do themselves. So much
for zeal without knowledge, which is but another
name for “ party-spirit,”—and that, too, “in the
name of Gop,” and for the sake of the “ Priyce oF
Prace”! “ Brethren,” says St. Ignatius (ad Philad.
Vill.), ““ παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, μηδέν nat ἐριθείαν πράσσειν,
ἀλλὰ κατὰ Χριστομαθίαν And again (ad Smyrn. viii.),
“Tods δὲ μερισμοὺς φεύγετε, ὡς ἀρχὴν κακῶν.
Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς
τῷ πατρί καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις" τοὺς
δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν. For, says
another venerable follower of the Holy Apostles (St.
Clement, ad Cor. xlvi.), “Τὸ σχίσμα ὑμῶν πολλοὺς
διέστρεψεν, πολλοὺς εἰς ἀθυμίαν ἔβαλεν, πολλοὺς εἰς
δισταγμὸν, τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς εἰς λύπην'᾽---καὶ ἐπίμονος
ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἡ στάσεις 1"
We are, however glad to find, that so self-denying,
and so deserving a man as Dr. Morrison, is in part,
at least, innocent of what, even to our limited know-
ledge of Chinese, appears an inferior style and in-
correct readings,—and that, too, quite apart from
:
4
|
271
“Sain” or “SHanc-Te.” With all due deference to
our betters, we cannot but regret, to think that
Christianity among the Chinese should, in a measure,
rest upon such a substitute for “the pure milk of the
Word” which alone “is able to save their souls.” At
the same time, we confess ourselves unable to believe
that this version can be understood and liked by the
Chinese, who only know their language in its own
unadulterated style. And we fear the “old ground”
must sometimes prove rather swampy; and the “ old
paths” little else than the recent tracks of wandering
men.
It would seem, assuredly, both better and safer to
follow the beaten road of Yaou and Shun, of Woo-
wang and of Confucius, in the field of their own
literature, than pretend to know better than they,
what they meant. One of us might as well presume
to have taught Isaiah an improved meaning of his
own sublime style, or to have given Plato a lesson
in Greek, as to lay down, on our own authority,
what the sense of this or that word is in Chinese,
and thus sit as “Judge and jury” over “Suin” and
SHane-Tr.” And, however anxious some missi-
onaries may be to “ go a-head,” they must “ ’bide
their time.” They cannot give a new meaning to
words by an “‘ipse dixit;” for they are amenable “to
the law and to the testimony” of the Chinese in
matters of this kind. These know best, assuredly,
the value of their own words. For our own part,
therefore, we should be well satisfied to adopt as a
272
substitute for by, Et, ory, ELonimM, Θεός and
ὁ Θεός, the “one personal Gop,” endued with power
and majesty; and worshipped, first, alone, and apart
from all other deities, by Yaou and Shun, upwards
of four thousand years ago, and ever since that time
by Kaou-yaou, Yih, Tseih, E-yun, Confucius himself,
and their posterity; while we would adopt other
terms, as occasion may require, for θεοί, or for any
one of them that is “not Gop.” We leave alone
“innovations,” as alike foreign to the Chinese, and
opposed to their highest authorities.
And, how those people cling to their authorities!
We were, one day, reading a portion of the ““ Vishnu-
Purana” with a learned Brahman, and the subject
matter brought us to discuss the shape of the Earth.
He talked gravely of the flat surface of the seas and
continents, and of the brilliant and lofty summit of
Mount Meru. On the other hand, we made plain to
his senses that the Earth is not such as he thought.
He then paused for some time, and at last he said:
Satyam etad, Mahashaya! Satyam asti, bate! tat’hapi
matpushtake na kirtitam! ‘It is true, Sir! very true!
still, it is not so stated in my book!”—A lesson, is it
not, to many a Christian teacher!
We should, indeed, be sorry to find that, while we
endeavour to make peace, “ others make ready to
battle.” For we have, in this respect, only one wish,
and that is, to contribute our mite in helping others
to teach the people of China to serve “GOD” in
spirit and in truth. Not to worship a certain Spirit,
ἡ
οἱ ὦ, Hea ae Ce Nea as Mex 4
ἀν τα, Se Ae τ weer fea, ee etm ἐν τῶν
273
or Spirits, an inferior, ill-defined Deity—“ Sumy,” in-
herent in every created object, but to learn the
purified, soul-enslaving service of the “ one personal
and supreme Gop,” who is above Sur, and whom
they “ignorantly worship” from the highest anti-
quity. St. Paul, at Athens, brought his hearers,
through “”Ayvworov Θεόν," τὸν 4ia—by whom Critias
even swore,—‘ Νὴ τὸν "ἄγνωστον ἐν ᾿Αθήναις" (Luc.
‘Philop. )—to believe in “the living God.” Why not
bring the people of China by gentle means also, to
look up to “Swane-Tx,” ὑψιμέδων, since he dwells
in the Highest Heaven, as to SX, “ The Mighty,”
Dn>y, “the Awful,” and Θεός, “the Supreme” Gop,
“who sits on the circle of the Heavens, and makes
the Earth his footstool”; and yet hath humbled
himself to come “ and dwell among men”? instead
of forcing a new system of expressions, adopted,
perhaps, by ignorant and submissive congregations,
—‘ addicti jurare in verba magistri,’—but alike un-
welcome and unintelligible to the educated among
the people. Then will “Surin” continue as of old, to
be, as it were, an emanation from “ Hwang-T’heen
SHanG-TE,”—rd πνεῦμα Διὸς βασιλεῶς, Of Plato; no
longer, however, as “ power of the air,” with the
“SHIN-KIUN” for ‘“ Prince”; but now, only as
“The Spirit,” “’Ayadorov θεοῦ τοῦ ἐφευρημένου, τοῦ
Θεοῦ τοῦ ἕξῶντος""--ῶἃϑ the Comforter, as the breath
of the Almighty that gives His people life.
But, we must feel, that in order to impress the
Chinese with correct and lasting notions of “ Gop,”
19
274
our teaching must bear the indelible stamp of
Untrormity. It must come home to each indi-
vidual with the convincing proof to him, of Unrry
among the teachers. For it is better to say nothing
of Gop, than to misrepresent Him to those who know
Him not. And if, in this respect, every man has a
right to claim the exercise of “ private judgment,” it
can only be to a certain point, not affecting either
“Truth” or “ principle.” Now, ‘ various creeds”
form no part of Gopv’s Truth; they are only the
“filthy rags” of human ignorance, hung about TruTa
by men who “as yet only see in part”; and “ self-
conceit”—-which is wide apart from “ sincerity”—
forms no integral portion of the principle of “doing
Gop service.” For in such matters, “private opinion”
is but the result of “our seeing only as in a glass,
darkly,”—a sad and searching proof of our earthly
and still imperfect state. And when we know Gop
as we are known of Him, all “ private views” will
cease. We shall then see how gross were our “ pri-
vate opinions” of Him, when we hear them told one
by one in the dazzling light of His glorious presence.
That ought to make us more forgetful of “self.”
“Tis οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν γενναῖος ;” says again St. Clement
(ad Cor. liv.), “ τίς εὔσπλαγχνος; τίς πεπληροφορη-
μένος ἀγάπης; εἰπάτω, Εἰ δὶ ἐμὲ στάσις, καὶ ἔρις, καὶ
σχίσματα, ἐκχωρῶ, ἄπειμι οὗ ἐὰν βούλησθε--- μόνον τὸ
ποίμνιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ eipnvevéro.” It ought to lead us
to strive more earnestly, and more unitedly toge-
ther, in our service of God in His Church. We all
ΜΝ at ee ee
275
of us know, what amount of chaff, of stubble, and
of other rubbish, “private judgment” heaps upon
the “ foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,” by
way of “rearing a holy Temple unto the Lord.”
But if these defects be deplorable at home, where
there always is an opportunity of appealing from
error to a better teaching somewhere, what effect ὦ
must they produce in India and China, where no
such opportunity exists? There, the “ TrurH as it
is in JESUS,” is now proclaimed in greater variety of
form than already exists among the sects of the
Heathen themselves: and the “ Only True Gop,”
“whom to know is Eternal Life,” is there preached
under more different names than the principal idols,
which the knowledge of Him alone is to abolish.
“Tf the Lorp be Gop, follow Him: but if Baal,
follow Him.” If “ Saanc-Tr” be your God, worship
him. If “Sui” be your choice, serve Him, but serve
Him alone. Halt no longer between “ two” opinions
or more, but choose one and keep to it. But look
well to your decision. And if you come in the
“name of God,” “seek not your own.” “ Ἤτω τὶς
πιστὸς- --δυνατὸς---σοφὸς.---ὡγνὸς ἐν ἔργοις"---τοσόυτῳ μᾶλλον
ταπεινοφρονεῖν ὀφείλει, ὅσῳ δοκεῖ μᾶλλον μείζων εἶναι, καὶ
ζητεῖν τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν, καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ" (St. Clem.
ad Cor. xlviii.). Do not lay bare your own. frailness
in the sight of the Heathen. But ‘in the name of
Gop,” and ‘ for the sake of Curist,” let the Heathen
at least see that ‘His Srirrr” is ONE, however
manifold be His gifts.
276
Well might that shrewd Hindoo reply to the
Missionary who introduced himself as a teacher of
the “ Truth,”—“ ‘ Truth,’ indeed! first agree among
yourselves as to what is ‘Truth,’ and then come and
teach us!”
XIX.
It was, therefore, with real satisfaction, that having
stumbled many a time in the “old paths,” we found
ourselves, at last, on more even ground. It may,
perhaps, be want of taste on our part; but still we ©
like it better. And we believe that those of our
readers who will follow us, will find their feet move
along more easily on Lao-tsze’s causeway, than on
the rugged “old paths” of modern make. Let us
compare only one verse as a sample of the latter,
with the same passage, in the Shanghaé version of
1851, already quoted.
St. John, i. 1, 2. ‘
“ Old Paths” :—
TANG CHI I YEW YEN EUL
πρὸς τὴν ἀρχν ἤδη ἣν τὸ λαλεῖν, καὶ
KE YEN KAE SHIN YEOU KE
τοῦτο τὸ λαλεῖν σὺν Δαίμονι καὶ τοῦτο
277
YEN WEI ' SHIN TSZE-CHAY TANG
τὸ λαλεῖν ἐστι Δαίμων τὸ τοῦτο πρὸς
CHI KAE SHIN YAY.
τὴν ἀχν σὺν Δαίμονι
Shanghaé version, 1851 :—
YUEN CHI YEW TAOU TAOU “YU
ἐν τῇ πρώτη ἀρχῇ ἢν ὁ Adyos . ὁ Adyos πρὸς
SHANG-TE K’HUNG TSAE ΤΑΟ _ TSEIH
τὸν Θεὸν ὁμῶς ἦν, ὁ Δόγος ὄντως
SHANG-TE. SHE TAOU YUEN CHI YU
ὁ Θεός. οὗτος ὁ Λόγος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἀρχῇ πρὸς
SHANG-TE ΚΉΝΟ TSAE YAY.
τὸν Θεὸν ὁμῶς ἦν
These passages, verbally rendered into English,
_ will read thus :—
“Old Paths” :-—
“ About beginning already there was speech; and
that speech with Deity (or Spirit), and that speech
was Deity (or Spirit). This same about Sees
with Deity (or Spirit).”
Shanghaé version :—
“ Very-first beginning there was the Word. The
Word with Most-High (Gop) indeed existed; the
Word indeed Most-High (Gop). ‘That Word very-
first beginning with Most-High (Gop) indeed ex-
isted.”
We do not at present recollect any classical
278
authority that throws light on the above rendering
of the “Old Paths.” But there is that very remark-
able passage in Lao-tsze (Tao-Te-k. ο. iv.) already
alluded to, which bears, in words even, a striking
resemblance to the above verse of Scripture in the
revised version of Shanghaé :—-TAOU-yay! Iwan hoo!
sze wan-wuh-che tsung! Woo puh chi shwuy-che tsze;
siang TE-che-sian. “The Taou, (ὁ Aoyos) how pro-
found! He appears to be the ancestor of all things!
I know not whose Son He is; He seems to have
existed even before Suane-Tr”! ‘To which may be
added, from c. xxv.:—‘ Yew yih wuh hwen-ching!
Sian T’heen-Tih seng! ‘Too li, eul puh ke; ko-i wei
T’heen hea Moo!” “(The Taou) is one Being; not
perfectly discernible (apratarkyam, avigyeyam, Manu.
c. i.); He was born before Heaven and Earth. He
alone stands and changes not; He may be consi-
dered as the Mother of this world.” And further,
in ὃ, xiv., where Lao-Tsze assigns to Taou these
three attributes, I-HI-WEI,—“ without colour”—
“without sound”—and ‘“ without substance.” Those
three characters in Chinese would read I-H-V; and
that led A. Rémusat (as we said above, p. 219) to
see in it the name of ΠῚ", “ Jehovah.”
The Shanghaé translators, therefore, deserve great
credit for having, through good scholarship, rendered
one of the most important passages in the New Tes-
tament in almost the very words of an author anterior
to Confucius; and who is held in China for, as it
were, inspired. It would have been well, perhaps, if
1
279
the Mandchou and Japanese translators had done the
same, instead of following the “Old Paths” in this
place, and rendering ὁ Adyos, by “ Gisoon” and “ Kasi-
koi,” both of which mean “word,” ὦ. 6., τὸ ῥῆμα,
instead of adopting the Chinese word, TAOU, which
is current in the classics of both those languages as
“ Doro,” and Tawoo or Mitsi.
And we cannot admit for one moment, that the
Shanghaé translators (not one of whom is personally
known to us) had in view “to establish their repu-
tation as scholars” only (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 15).
But rather, we feel assured by the proofs before us,
that they strove to do their best in rendering literally
the idea and intention of the Sacred Text, into good
Chinese ;—‘ rexpaipes χρῆμ᾽ ἕκαστον." If they have suc-
ceeded equally well in the other parts of Scripture,
they need not fear either reproach or obloquy. But,
on the contrary, they may wait and see which of the
two, under God’s blessing, succeeds best in China;
whether the crooked “Old Paths” of an Europeo-
Chinese, and, we fear also, Pantheistic version of the
“‘Word of Gop,’ or that same Word rendered as
well as men of judgment and scholars can do, with
the best available means at hand. And if scholarship
be not honoured by being devoted to the glory of
Gop, for what other purpose can it be used? for even
a wise man—
74 μαν-
τεύσατο δ᾽ ἐς Θεὸν ἐλθών."
This, however, is far too solemn a subject to be
280
treated otherwise than sternly and soberly. We
would not, therefore, have alluded to the “ Old Paths”
further than to show that they do justice to the time
at which they were made. But since they have be-
come, with some, a matter of ‘“ conscience,” a test of
“ Truth,” and of “honesty of purpose,” we have
endeavoured to show on what grounds those high
pretensions rest; and how easy it is for “‘ conscience”
to continue both “ tender and dark,” and for “ Truth”
to be so far obscured, as to lead its advocates to fight
honestly for a mere shadow. And we have ventured
to suggest also, that since all this difference is about
the sacred text, the subject should be made, by every
one engaged in the translation of that text, a matter
of earnest thought and of deep study.
These, however, are not to the taste of every one—
“ κουφότερα. yap ἀπειράτων φρένες." To some, it is
easier at once to prejudice their mind in favour of a
particular view of the case, till that alone appears
correct; and then put it as a matter of “conscience”
only; as if scholarship had little or nothing to do
with it; and as if it followed that because a man has,
as he thinks, an honest intention, that alone can
supply the place of fit words and of pure idiom. In
our humble opinion, however, he is most conscien-
tious, who takes most pains to get at the root of the
matter, till he has satisfied his conscience that he is
neither led by prejudice, nor defending a favourite
scheme of his own, but that he rests on the only .
foundation beyond which he cannot go, And this,
281
in translating the Word of Gop, is, undoubtedly,
—classic language. The purest gold, as well as the
purest idiom, are for The service of His sanctuary.
But pure diction is to be borrowed from classic
authors alone. The opinion of Leang-Afa, therefore,
against Dr. Gutzlaff’s translation (‘The Bible of
Every Land,” p. 5), that it consists of “ passages
from classic authors put together to render the Word
of Gop,” is a compliment to that late remarkable
man. In China, as well as in Europe, a man may
affect to underrate that to which he has not attained;
he may hold “ classics” cheap because he knows
little or nothing about them; and thus save himself
the trouble of studying them, on the specious plea
that— Hath not Gop made foolish the wisdom of
this world?” Yea, verily, and thanks be to Hm, it
is “made foolish” as means of redemption, which is
through “ Christ crucified” only. But he who wrote
that, was himself a good scholar, who spoke good
Greek; or they would not have said to him, at
Athens, ““Ακουσόμεθά σου rdduv,’—" We will hear thee
again.” Nay, by his own example, he teaches us to
search in the writings of classic authors, for that
which, without imparting the “ fear of God,” can alone
educate the mind and form the judgment, of the “ re-
deemed of Christ,” who have learnt the “ fear of God”
from His own revealed Word. Some men, therefore,
might take, if not a leaf, at least a paragraph, out of
the book of the Jesuit missionary, Prémare, one of
the most accomplished of Chinese scholars, past or
282
present, who says to young missionaries: “ vellem
ut quod nemo me facere monuit, alii facerent, dum
viget memoria, et anni adhuc florent: quatuor libros
classicos memoriter discerent eo plane modo quo
solent pueri Sinz; repuerascendum nobis est, si vo-
lumus Christum Jesum his gentibus cum fructu
annunciare; quem, amabo, laborem talis spes non
leniat?” And Confucius, who is seldom wrong in
practical matters, says, much to the point: “ Woo-tang
tsun ji puh-she, tsun yay puh sih, isze; wo i! puh joo
hio yay!—‘‘I have spent whole days without food,
and whole nights without sleep, in order to meditate.
But it availed not. There is nothing like the sid
of ancient authors” (Hea-Lun, ο. xv.).
For, adds Hien-wen-shoo (sent. xlvii. )}—* puh teng
Shan, puh chi T’heen-che kaou. Puh lin ky, puh chi
Tih-che how. Puh wun sian wang-che y yen, puh chi
hio-wun-che ta.”—‘‘ In like manner as without as-
cending a mountain, we cannot estimate the height of
Heaven; nor the depth of the Earth without descend-
ing into a valley: so also we cannot know the great-
ness of learning and wisdom without listening to the
sayings left on record by kings of old.”
was et
283
XX.
- It is now high time, our readers will say, that we
should conclude. We will, therefore, in a few words,
briefly sum up the whole.
So far as we can gather from Shin v. Shang-Te,
the principal arguments against the use of “ SHane-
Tr,” as a substitute for “ God,” are these :—
I.—That “ Suanc-Te” is the Chinese “ Jupiter.”
What of that?—By “Jupiter” is not meant, we
hope, that elderly man sitting upon a throne with a
thunder-bolt in one hand, a wand in the other, and
an eagle at his feet; not to mention a monstrous tale
of the foulest absurdities by way of a biography.
For ὅηλνα- ΤῈ has nothing in common with him.
But Suane-Tre is identical with “ Jupiter” as
“ Ζεὺς πατήρ," Dies-piter, Diu-s or Diaus-piter,—“ Hea-
venly-Father” personified. “Te-chay,” says Kang-
he (art. Ze), “'T’heen-cho-ming; so-i ming Te, Te-chay,
Te-yay,” ‘ Ruling,” or “ Ruler,” is a name of Hea-
ven; it is called “ Ruler” because it “ judges and
decides,” and is “ Shang” as being “ Supreme” (ibid.)
=Zeds "Ovpavos”—“ Πάτερ ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν. Ovpavor,’—
284
for the “‘ Heavens rule” (Dan. iv.), 3. ¢., the ‘* Most-
High” (ibid.), and “ Gop is the height of Heaven”
(Job xxii. 12), ete. And though ὅ'ηλνα- ΤῈ is not
expressly ‘“ progenitor genitrixque,” like ‘“ Jupiter,”
yet he sends down the Yin and Yang principles to
work out Nature; which is nearly the same. He is
in the words of the Holy Apostle,—"Ayworos Θεός"
—(DEUS, ZETS), “τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμέν᾽.-- ὃ
Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν Koopov”—* διδοὺς πᾶσ᾽ ζωήν" (Ζεύς,
“ὅθεν ἔχομεν ἀεὶ τὸ ζῆν") «.7.r. (Acts xvii. 23, 28, etc. ).
And we add, from the seventh Iguvinian Table:
“TouFe Ilatpe wpe meovpov,”—“ worship him first”:
for he alone is “ IovIIarep,” called in Phrygia Βαγαῖος,
“‘worshipful,” (from the Vaidic B’haga;) or among the
same people, “ Mageds,” (also from the ancient Maha-
Diu-s, or, perhaps, Mahi-Diaus, of India, )—their
“unknown God,” whom Christians alone know, and
call, “ Our Faruer which art 1s Heaven”!
IJ.—That “ Θεός," and not “ Zeds,” having been
adopted by the Apostles, “Ζεύς, “ SHane-Tx,”
should not be used by Christians.
Doubtless, if there were in Chinese a term cor-
responding exactly to “ Θεός." But we know of none.
For “ Suu,” when thus by itself, has a collective
sense, and means neither “ Θεός nor “6 Θεός," but
Deity,” and, perhaps, “θεοί. Whereas “ SHane-
Tre” combines both the “individual” God οἵ the
Greeks, “ Ζεύς," and the “ personal” God of the Greek
language, “ ὁ Θεός," both always in the singular. For
ΨΨΨ ἊΝ ΗΝ γεν Δ eS 1
285
Ζεύς, which may have been the “ πρῶτος δαίμων" of
the first tribe that ever spoke Greek,—* Ζεύς Aoli-
bus, antiquissimis temporibus, in primis proprium
videtur fuisse,’ says V. Lennep (Or. Ling. Gr. p.
917), was thus probably anterior to @eds,—“ Atticis
proprium, et communi usu tritum.” Since, however,
the Chinese language is limited to the Chinese nation,
and is not universal, like the Greek, the “individual”
God of China, is also the “ personal” god of the
Chinese language—that is practically, both Ζεύς and
ὁ Θεός in one.
IiI.—That there are “some half-dozen Shang-
Te’s” in China.
We reply,—
1) Not a vestige of more than One “ Suane-Tr”
is to be found in the oldest works in Chinese,—which
are the highest authority in China. So far as we
know, in the “Shoo-king,” which begins with the
deeds of Yaou (B.c. 2356), in the She-king, the
Hiao-king, in the works of Confucius, of Mencius, of
Lao-tsze, and in the Le-ke throughout, no allusion
whatever is made but to One Supreme “ SHane-Tr.”
The “five Tx’s,” according to Confucius, were only
a name for the five elements (see above, p. 220,
note).
2) Consequently, the worship of more than One
“ Suane-Tx,” if such a worship really exists in
China, must be of a comparatively recent date; and
therefore it does not bear, so far as we can find from
286
the few books we have, the stamp of “ antiquity,”
i. e., of “authority,” for the Chinese.*
IV.—That “the use of Suanc-TEr for God will
delude the Chinese with the notion that they
are serving the true God while worshipping
their idols under that name.”
We ask,—would that be less the case, when instead
* We find mention made of the five “'Tx’s” of
Heaven, and of the three “kiun,” or “ presidents,”
in the French translation of a modern commentary
on Tai-Shang’s “ Kan-ing-Pien” (pp. 7, 8). But
even there, they are spoken of as “TE,” Rulers only,
over whom one is alone “SHANG,” Supreme. And
in our copy of the ‘“ San-kiao-huen-lew,” a work on
the rise and progress of the sects of Tao, Confucius,
and Buddha, in China, there are only two mentioned
as “ Shang-Te,” viz., “ Yu-hwang Shang-Te” (p. 7),
and ‘“ Hiuen-T’heen Shang-Te” (p. 14); with a num-
ber of inferior gods and goddesses.
The print of this article in our copy of that book is
so indistinct as to be illegible. In the absence of other
information, we should think “ Hiuen-T’heen Shang-
Te,” ze. “Shang-Te of the deep-blue or highest
Heaven,” identical with the “ Yu-hwang Shang-Te,” _
thus termed by the Taouists, and no other than
SHANnG-Tr, who inhabits Tsin-T’heen, the azure or
purest and highest of the “thirty-three Heavens”
of Chinese theology.
287
of being deluded by one idol of one Suane-Tr, they
would have far more frequent opportunities of being
deceived by hundreds of idols of hundreds of different
“¢ SHINS ?”
V.—Great stress, also, is laid on the fact, that
some idolatrous Chinese,—even the Emperor
Kang-he,—ignorant of the spiritual worship of
the real Suana-Tr, thought, very naturally, that
his own mode of worship was the right one.
But errors of this kind are inevitable at the be-
ginning. For converts from heathenism, like prisoners
emerging from a dark and gloomy dungeon, are, as
it were, dazzled by the light to which their eyes are
not accustomed, and they discern objects imperfectly.
But, for this very reason, they require tender ma-
nagement; like the poor blind man of Bethsaida,
who at first only “saw men as trees, walking”; and
- on whose eyes our compassionate Saviour, “ who
came to give sight to the blind,” laid his hands a
second time, “until he was restored and saw every
man clearly.” Men in that state are like children,
who must be fed with the “milk of the Word” (so
that it be pure!) until they gradually come to use
more solid food suited to their growing wants, out of
the same inexhaustible store. Meanwhile they should
be dealt with according to their amount of know-
ledge, after the example of the Holy Apostles, to
whom “assembled with one accord,” and ‘to the
Holy Ghost,” it seemed good to lay upon the “ bre-
288
thren of the Gentiles,’ ‘no greater burden than
necessary things.”
And these were not many. “If thou believest
with all thine heart,” said Philip to the Ethiopian,
“thou mayest be baptized.” He answered and said:
1 BELIEVE THAT JESUS-CHRIST 15 THE SON OF GoD.”
Upon this foundation, than which none other can
be laid, the “ wise master-builder” rears an edifice
unto Gop. But he does it slowly, deliberately; re-
membering that a temple which is to last for ever,
is not “run up” in one day. He therefore aims at
opening the understanding, and at training the heart
of his neophyte “in sanctification of the Spirit and
belief of the Truth”; giving him at the same time a
correct idea of a Church,—not of a spectral dream
of human conceit; not of a sickly, spare, ungainly,
figure of a Church in sectarian trim,—but of the
broad outline, and stately form of the Church Catho-
lic, left on trust by the Holy Apostles of Christ, and
modelled after them by their immediate successors.
The task of a Missionary, then, although it may be
chiefly to impart the rudiments of doctrine to “ babes
in Christ,” is not an easy one. For we all know,
that it often requires more knowledge, more patience,
and more judgment, to teach well the first principles
to children, than to develop those same elements
to men of mature mind. And a good beginning is
always slow, if not also difficult. Even the kingdom
of Gop, as well among the heathen as in our own
hearts, progresses, like leaven in the lump, slowly
and froma small beginning. Yet, “he that believeth
shall not make haste.” But he will “ pray without
ceasing,” even while at his work; he will “ hope unto
?
a eee eer τ
ΤΉΝ > Wake
the end,’ and “have long patience,” until he receive
genial showers of blessing from Him who alone
“ siveth the increase” to the seed springing and
growing up, “first the blade, then the ear, after that
the full corn in the ear,” “ he knoweth not how.”
But the leaven should be new, and the seed good.
And the special errand of Missionaries is to provide
for that. Their teaching, then, is, like leaven, to
transform the people among whom they live into new
creatures. Their “preaching of the Word” is the
seed which will either be told ten or a hundred-fold
by the Angels of Gop, “in that day” “ when every
- man’s work shall be made manifest,” or else be by
them cast into the fire. And their example, like rays
from the Sun of Righteousness, is intended to shed
around them a continual influence of “true light” and
“everlasting life,” freely sent from Heaven to men.
But, what if the leaven is old and the teaching un-
sound? what if the seed sown is mingled with tares?
what if the light of the teachers is dim, and their life
torpid and cold? How shall “the Gentiles see the
righteousness of Gop,” and “their glory be like a
flowing stream” ?
There is, then, enough in this, assuredly, to make
many a man pause ere “he puts his hand to the
plough” in the field of Missions. For assurance is
not faith; nor is presumption authority. And the
20
290
boast of him who “ girdeth on his harness,” is not the
song of the warrior who “ putteth it off” after the
victory. ‘”Av@pwze,” says a wise man, “πρῶτον émt-
σκεψαι ὁποῖόν ἐστι TO Tpaypa’ εἶτα Kal τὴν σεαυτοῦ φύσιν
κατάμαθε, εἰ δύνασαι βαστάσαι. Πένταθλος εἶναι βούλει, ἢ
παλαιστής; ἴδε σαυτοῦ τοὺς βραχίονας, τοὺς μηροὺς τὴν
ὀσφῦν κατάμαθε: ἄλλο γὰρ πρὸς ἄλλο πέφυκε. 4Δοκεῖς, ὅτι
ταῦτα ποιῶν, ὡσαύτως δύνασαι ἐσθίειν, ὡσαύτως πίφειν,
ὁμοίως δυσαρεστεῖν ; ἀγρυπνῆσαι δεῖ, πονῆσαι, ἀπὸ
τῶν οἰκείων ἀπελθεῖν, ὑπὸ παιδαρίου καταφρονηθῆναι,
ἐν παντὶ ἧττον ἔχειν, ἐν τιμῇ, ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐν δίκῃ, ἐν mpay-
ματίῳ παντί." (Epict. Ench. ¢.xxxvi.) If the reward
of duty well done is great, great also is the regret
of duty left undone from a want of aptitude for it.
For “a man feels most acutely,” says Simplicius
(comm. in Ench., ad loc.),—“ τὸ aicyos τῶν κατὰ
προαίρεσιν οἰκείων dpaprnudtov,’— the disgrace of his
own short-comings that result from presumption on
his part.”
If, therefore, after having examined himself, a man
finds his strength unequal to the glorious calling of
a Missionary, let him, by all means, desist, and rather
labour in the Church at home; or better, perhaps,
choose another calling in life. There is yet ample
scope, even for the most moderate abilities, in a
country parish; where, ignoring and ignored, the ser-
vant of Christ may do Gop service in doing good to
his neighbour. Yet even there, he will find it easier
to preach than to practise,—to give advice, than to
act up to it. Even in the retirement of his rural
291
life, he may find it hard “ to walk humbly with his
Gop”; and even there he will often start from dreams
of self-complacency, at the searching voice, “‘ BEHoLp
I COME QUICKLY, AND MY REWARD IS WITH ME,” that
warns him to “ watch,” and to “take heed unto
himself,” lest after he hath preached to others, he
himself “should be a castaway.”
XXI.
On the other hand, the principal plea in favour of
* Sutn,” seems to be that of —
I.—A great majority for that term.
That argument, we apprehend, comes to this :—
The multitude of Israel proclaimed Baal, Gop; one
prophet of Gop, only, was left in the land, and they
even sought his life. Therefore, Baal is Gop!—Poor
Galileo, too, was in the minority, and therefore, it
- would appear, in the wrong, when in his prison he
comforted himself in saying of the Earth,—“ It turns,
however; and in spite of them, too!”
Ii.—The opinion of residents in China.
PPC των ee ee
This, it must be admitted, carries with it some
weight. For residents in China have opportunities,
without which it is impossible to come at a perfect
> ς 5
a
292
knowledge of Chinese. But unless it can be proved
that all the residents in China, implied in the as-
sertion, have availed themselves to the full extent of
those opportunities, and have profited thereby, this
plea is of little value. The air of China does not of
itself, that we know of, infuse knowledge; nor are
men’s minds there, more proof against prejudice than
in other countries.
IlI.—That “ Shin” is a generic term for “ God
gods.”
That is the very reason why it should not be used
for “Gop”; for we have shown,— :
1) That “Gop” has nothing in common with
“ gods,” for —
2) that “ θεοί" are not “Θεός; still less, ‘6 Θεός."
3) That “ Θεός" is not “Sumn”; and that “ Sain”
is still further from being ‘6 Θεός."
4) That “Sur,” Derry, is ΖΔαίμων, or “ τὸ Δαιμόνιον"
taken collectively—sometimes δαίμονες; and ‘“ Oeds”
only when this implies δαίμονα under some visible
form—or ‘“ θεόν ξύλινον."
Therefore, that since “Surin” is applied to num-
berless “idols,” and is itself inferior to the “ Supreme
Being”—Suane-TE;—not only it is not an appro-
priate substitute for “6 @eds,”—“ Gop,” but the ob-
jection of there being “ more than one Tr,” made —
against Suanc-Tr, is far more applicable to the case —
of Sun. For, as we have said, there must be greater
danger of fostering Polytheism in China, with Sum,
293
a “host” in itself, than with two or more SHANG-
4 Tx’s; admitting, for argument sake, that these are
____ all equal in rank and power.
IV.—That Sumy being of such comprehensive
meaning, it seems to correspond best with the
plural DTN, Elohim.
al ΟΥ̓ ee ee oe ey,
We have seen,—
1) That practically, the plural in Widities Spins
respect only. When taken in a plural sense it may
apply to the “ Host of Heaven.” Now we do not
“worship” that host; nor do we wish to mislead the
Chinese into the “ worship of angels.”
2) That the collective noun, “Sury,” does not
represent Exonm in the singular sense of “Gop”;
but only sometimes “ Elohim,” “gods”; and that it
neither has anything in common with the “unity”
implied in the term “ @eds”—Deus, in its original
sense, nor with “‘God” in its probable meaning; and
still less with the Might and Majesty of “Ex” and
of “ ELoum.”
V.—Snurn is declared to be the true rendering of
D'S by “Hebrmists and divines” (Shin v.
Shang-Te, p. 11)—
who, however, candidly confess (ibid. p. 16) that
they “know nothing of Chinese”!
VI.—With a crowning effort, the author of Shin
v. Shang-Te, summons his renitent brethren to
his own tribunal. And, then and there, in foro
σ-
294
conscientie, he challenges them,—either to adopt
his views in the matter of “Surv,” “ now so
plain” (p. 20), “plain enough,” he says (p. 9),
“for any serious-minded, sensible Christian, who
is willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit
of God, to form a sound judgment in this im-
portant matter ;”—or to continue under the ban
of his displeasure, as neither ‘ serious-minded,”
“sensible,” ‘ conscientious,” nor “ candid.”—A
pleasant alternative, it must be owned!
It is owing, probably, to our being dazzled by the
excessive clearness of the subject, that anxious as we
are to escape the blighting imputation of seeing and
speaking double, from “the only person in England”
(as we read in his own pamphlet, p. 20), “ capable of
giving a determined exhibition of his views regarding
Shin”—we try in vain to see as he does—1) that
“Gop” is a “ generic” term, and—2) that “ Sam” is
an equivalent for that term.
We would gladly, for the sake of peace, stretch a
point or two;—stroke down difficulties ;—waive al-
together the relative difference between the singular —__
by, MN, and Θεός, and the plural Dds ;—draw no .
distinction between 28, DOYION, and Θεός, with or
without the article;—and render all those terms by
the one word “Gop.” And, so far, we should pro-
bably join issue with the “‘men of Sumy.” 3
But when they further appeal to ‘ conscience,” 4
in proof that “Gop, gods,” and “Sum,” being both
-
ἢ Π
-
4 ba ° Ξ Ἂς
2 Ole ears Dees a :
Ve Or Se LTE WE tee Se a ae ae AIG
995
“eneric” terms, they are either identical or equi-
valent, the plea is so solemn, that we feel obliged,
even at the risk of being tedious, once more to ask,
for the sake of our own conscience and of that of
others, If “Gop” is a “ generic” term given to Gop
as such, of what sort of “genus” is it ?
We shrink from assimilating the unapproachable
Majesty of Gov’s holy Name with earthly things.
But we are driven to inquire: Is “ Gop,” then, a genus
like certain genera in Natural History (Apterix,
Didus, etc.), which embrace only one species or indi-
vidual? If so, we might possibly be at one with the
“men of Surv.” But a “genus” of this kind will
not suit them; for they always couple “God, gods”
together (Shin v. Shang-Te, Ὁ. 1, etc.); from whence
we must infer that they look upon the singular term,
“ God,” as the “ genus,” and upon the plural, “ gods,”
as the “species” of that genus. The plural, DTN,
therefore, cannot be, as they say, a “ generic” term,
for a “generic” term is in the singular. Take, for
instance, the generic term “man,” with which the
term “God” is compared in Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 6.
“Ὁ Man,” as a “genus,” does not convey the thought
or idea of the individual Apam, from whom all men
came; but “man” is the idea left on the mind by the
aggregate of “mankind.” So that while talking of
“a man,” “men,” “tall or short,” ‘good or bad,”
the type, “man,” runs through them all, for they all
share itin common. Do the friends of “ Sut,” then,
look upon “God” in the same light? Does the term
296
“God” in the Bible, convey to their mind one idea
formed by the aggregate of all that is or was wor-
shipped, whether the One Eternal Gop, who alone Is,
or the foulest images of a corrupt imagination that
ARE NoT? And are “a god,” and “gods,” in their
estimation, a part of “Gop”? We trust not. Yet
Dros Pat from their own showing, imply the
“species” of the singular “oenus,” 28 or TON. If
so, then, why are those several terms in the singular
and plural not rendered accordingly, in the various
translations of the Bible? for the “genus” can not
stand for the “ species,’ nor vice versd. Especially
in this case. For the type of this would-be genus
“Gop,” is “Essence,” “self-existing being.” This
type, however, is limited to the so-called “ generic”
term ‘ Gop,” who alone 1s, and it excludes the
‘‘ species,” “ta god, gods,” which ARE Nor.
And why is Ὁ δὲ ever construed with a verb in
the singular after it? bees in reality, the Hebrew
language has no “ generic” term for “Gop.” If it
had, by, ON, and pds, would not imply the
same τ νυ κα βον, πρύμο they do. But in
Hebrew there is no other Gop than “WX AYIS"—
—“ DNA Sa op pe —« ond mint any
“4931 min’ for He alone says I AM. All other
“ θεοὶ πολλοί᾽ (1 Cor. viii. 5) are only “λεγόμενοι θεοί"
“said to be gods”; as the Georgian version
renders it, sakhel-debul ghmertni,—‘‘ gods by name-
given” only; since in the words of Scripture they
are ‘ by NO” and “ pbs ὟΣ ” neither God” —
SE NN See Oa On ey TELS PEER get Ome, Ghee ag Reem
"eee
PE Eee Me eee
oh, eed Re eee ee
297
nor “gods.” For that, adds the Ethiopic, -\H54:
AANANTU™: NHSZ: AI7EVO:: “their many
gods are so many devils.” Their name, therefore,
cannot possibly be applied to “Gop,” who is called
mms, “Iam,” DSS “Gop,” and Ay, “ Tue
Erernat One,” in the same verse (Ex. iii. 15, 16),
as if He were of their ‘‘ genus”—for He 1s, and they
ARE Not. And to say of Him the “genus,” that He
is TRUE, and of them the species, that they are FALSE,
is but,—
Divino “ capiti
—varias inducere plumas
Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum
Desinat in piscem”
and does not, assuredly, go far to make a consistent
“venus” of the whole. pry, Gon, then, is in itself,
we believe, no “generic” term. It belongs first, to
Gop alone.*
* The very words, “I am JEnovau, that is my
name,” ete. (Shin v. Shang-Te, title-page), show that
plainly. For the term IEHOVAH, 77 (Fut. K.),
which implies Erernat Essence (GOD), or IAVE
Γ (Fut. H.), which expresses the Auruor of that
Essence (DIU-S, ΘΕΟΣ), belongs for this very
reason, to GOD alone. And although in itself a
common term, like bs, pindy, ΘΕΟΣ, etc., it be-
comes Gop’s NAME, as belonging to Him alone; and
298
For, except a few instances in which, as 8. Ephrem
says (Serm. adv. Scr. xxix. )—]Zaiso\ aciaton;> Jor]
. Zaario al 1:0 Ἰδιλ) “Gop, out of loving-kindness
to mortal men called them ‘gods,’ as of ‘ grace’”;
or other places in which His august Name is degraded
when given by misnomer to “thoei vistai ni sind
gutha”—“ them which in essence are no gods” says
Ulphilas (Gal. iv. 8)—pby in Scripture, belongs to
Gop alone. “ Adtapkés οὖν ἡμῖν ἐστιν," Says S. Hip-
polytus, ““ μόνον εἰδέναι ὅτι σύγχρονον Θεοῦ οὐδὲν πλὴν
αὐτὸς ἦν, αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος dv πολὺς ἦν---πάντα δὲ ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ,
αὐτὸς δὲ ἦν τὸ πᾶν" (contra Heres. Noet. 10, ed.
Routh). Nay, even the plural or collective sense of
DION, as implying the Persons of the Most-Hoty
Trinity, is meant for ONE when said of Him, who
Seberianus says (Hom. i. p. 6): ms παρ ke wayne
δ «Ὁ fig uanupleuy, ἔκ. ἧς "fb βιωηπι fpug ἢ
Up big gndutinurfieuge purr gh ἧς bhg sung
put ginu.—‘neither consists of several other in-
it is also INEFFABLE as implying the Essence of Him
whose nature is INCOMPREHENSIBLE. © Now, JEHOVAH
and Gop are, as we have seen (above, p. 47, etc.),
closely allied in meaning. So that the term Gop
(Self-existent) can no more be applied correctly to
other beings, than the term Jenovau (Eternal) can
become the name of others than of Him who alone
Is, without beginning and without end.
Pree ene (ere eae es Ae ee ee
299
dividuals combined into One Being, nor of many
things included in one thing; since there is nothing
anterior to Him.” For (p.12) & wp αὶ imp, ke op
ms, hk dp (Puwquenpe ἔκ ns mbupu, be ns msu,
ngs Pugucnpu qucuikdp qap gkppapyn(Pfle
“there is One Lord, and One God, and One King;
we do not acknowledge ‘Lords,’ ‘ Gods,’ or ‘kings,’
in the Holy Trinity.” And (p.14) ful mS wn. as
uukey winch ay Es Us mn as, ἔκ. ns iakpy—
“ verily, to say ‘Gop with Gop,’ is but to call Gop by ©
His name. ‘Gop with Gop,’ and not ‘Gops.’” We
are, therefore, at a loss to conceive (although it may
be ignorance on our part), how any one can feel his
* conscience” urged to believe that ““ Gop, gods,”
—who have nothing whatever in common but the
accident of being “* objects of worship,” one true and
the others false,—can ever be a “ genus,” and that
the Eternal “ Gop” is a “ generic” term for all the
“ vods” of heathendom, taken for His species!
The “generic” term for “ object of worship” which
such a “conscience” looks for, is not ‘ Gop,” but
“Perry.” For the practical acceptation of “ Derry”
as ‘object of worship,” forms a “ genus” consistent
throughout; since both the Only True Gop, and
every one of the “gods” of the heathen, are each
“the Derry” of their respective worshippers. To be
true to themselves, then, the “men of Sain” ought to
adopt ‘“ Derry” instead of “Gop,” in their English
version of the Bible. But what cold consolation, to be
told that “the Dxrry,” and not the “ SELF-EXISTENT
300
Erernat GOD,” is ‘our refuge, and a very present
help in time of trouble”! No! We cannot say:
“My soul, wait thou only upon the Derry”; for in
“the Derry is my salvation and my glory”: “the
rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in the Derry.”
And yet “Derry, δαίμων,"---ποῦ “ Θεός, GoD,”—is,
practically, the equivalent of “Sun” as “ object of
worship.”
Once more, then, what is “ Suin”’ ?
Kang-he (art. Shin) says: SHIN meaou woo fan.
“Sun is subtle and spiritual, and it cannot be dis-
cerned.” Yin Yang puh ts*hih-che—“it is the un-
fathomable part of Yin and of Yang ;”—of the
bright and of the obscure, of the male and of the
female principles of life and of decay.
“ Sury,” then, is “ Sprrir” or “ Sprrits,” tn general.
But, in particular, “Suin” is the Ling of Yang, 7. ¢.,
the best, brightest part of the better principle of the
two,—literally, “ Sprit,” κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and practically,
“ Derry”; while the Ling of Yin is called Kwent, soul.
The two (“ Kwer-Suin”’) are constantly coupled to-
gether in Chinese worship,—‘ Kwet,” as inhabiting
the Moon (Tae-Yin), and “Sumy,” as resident in the
Sun (Tae-Yang), from whence it is shed abroad on
the Earth as “ light and life giving Sprerr.” Sau is
worshipped as such only; as the best and brightest
element in Nature, to which it gives existence (t*he-
wuh eul puh ko ee), and from every object in wale
it is inseparable.
Some of those objects are worshipped for the sake
ro” —-2
:
:
᾿
35
᾿
ἣ
Bs ν
Γι
»
ar
a
%
301
of the Spirit supposed to inhabit them; and which
Spirit those objects, says the Mandchou Dict.—
duboroungge-be gemou enduri sembi—* are said to re-
present.” This constitutes the Potyrurism, or PE-
SHIN of China (7.¢., KWEI-SHIN, She-king, vi. p. 45,
and com.), which corresponds to the like worship in
Egypt, where “Hermes /igyptius, sensit et scripsit
—visibilia et contrectabilia simulacra, velut corpora
deorum esse ;—inesse autem his quosdam spiritus in-
vitatos— Hos ergo spiritus invisibiles per artem
quandam visibilibus rebus corporalis materiz: copu-
lare, ut sint quasi animata corpora, illis spiritibus
dicata et subdita simulacra, hoc esse dicit deos facere,
eamque magnam et mirabilem deos faciendi accepisse
homines potestatem,” etc. (St. August. de C. D.
lib. viii. ο. 23.)
But since “Sur” is inherent ἐγ) all objects in
Nature, exactly like δαίμων, ἃ ψυχὰ τῶ κόσμω, οἵ
Onatas, which makes the world of Thales “ ἔμψυχος
καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρης, the Chinese are evidently liable
to Panrurism. And nothing saves them from being
mere Polytheists or Pantheists, but their worshipping
also One Supreme Being, Suana-Tx, to whom “ Sun”
is inferior and subject. Yet although ‘“ Deus unus
est, et ubique ipse diffusus est” (St. Cypr. de Idol.
V.5), b2lo waonkso -s—*“ He is neither confined in
any one place,” like “Sin” in an “idol ; wy aS
$o,S0 o1dacni, foriio }1032 oof beh «,αἹ-- ΠΟΥ
“does He manifest Himself by issuing forth like
wind or light”—as “Sum” does from the Sun (St,
302
Ephrem, Serm. adv. Ser. xxx.). But Gop is One,
alone and Supreme; Lord-Governor of Heaven and
Earth; like 1’HEEN-CHOO-TSE, SHanc-TE, who is
called T’HEEN-SHIN, “the Deity of Heaven,” but only
by catachresis, and in like manner as a block of wood
or stone is called Spirit (“Sum”), or “ Bright-
Heaven” (Θεός). For the “ vivifying energy,”
“ Sum,” or “Spirit” of Heaven, dwells in the Sun;
from whence it radiates upon the Earth, as both light
and life, by the will of SHANG-TE, whose name is one
with >¥ and INDRA, the Supreme Rucer of Heaven.
As we conscientiously believe that ‘“‘Gop” is not
a “generic” term, and that “Sury,” according to
Chinese ideas, answers best not to “Gop,” but to
“Derry,” which, they say, animates all bodies,—we
again repeat, that to urge “Sain” upon the Chinese
as the only equivalent and sole representative of
“Gop,” is to lead them, unwittingly, to PoLyTHetsm,
if not also to Panrueism.* At least, it appears to
* We are not singular in thinking that the worship
of “Sum” must have even worse results. Mr. Abel
Rémusat, the first Chinese scholar of his day, in
Europe, says:—“ On pourrait cependant conclure du
passage qui nous occupe (Chung-Yung, ὁ. xvi. 3)
que le sentiment de Confucius sur ces esprits se
rapprochait beaucoup du Spinosisme, et des idées
exprimées dans le fameux passage de Sénéque, si
souvent cité” (Quest. Nat. ii. c. xlv.). “ Eundem
:
'
303
us, that it is doing what even Plato would not do.
It is making “ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου,---Δία," instead of
leaving it “vy Διὸς Bacireds.” It is, in short,
drawing “Gop” from “Spirit,” instead of drawing
* Spirit” from “ Gop.”
_ In Chinese, then, the emanation SHIN is practically,
DEITY, 4AIMAN ; and SHANG-TE, from whom it
emanates, is the nearest equivalent for GOD, ΘΕΟΣ.
We, Christians, know and believe that “Gop is a
Sprrit,” infinite, invisible, eternal; but we think of
Him habitually as of a Person, who is “ tender
Father,” “ Almighty Creator,” and “ Just Judge.”
Our heart dwells on His attributes as such; and that
is the habitual idea we have to impart to the people
of China. Now they already worship Suanc-Tr and
Suty, “ Gop and Derry,” Θεός and Aaiyov.
‘pypnn> ma pe “py owh—(Pirke Av. v. 18.)
“Every controversy which is for the sake of the
Name of Heaven, will be finally established, whereas
every other ‘sort of discussion will come to nothing,”
our own earnest wish to assist our brethren in their
decision may not prove altogether fruitless. If, then,
we have been allowed to say aught that may, directly
or indirectly, “ fall out rather unto the furtherance of
310
the Gospel” in China, and help even one poor man
there ‘“ to choose,” as the pious Anthon says (Asc.
Is. v. p. 78): A: ATHANHG: NP: Ler: Aa:
AGTH : ANH: PHM ::—‘‘the Word of Gop
for his provision by the way, rather than much trea-
sure” then,—
“To GOD onLy WISE, BE GLORY, THROUGH JESUS
CHRIST, ror Ever. AMEN.”
ATINPACE:
a
From the Catacombs at Rome.
a
Se
ἘΣ
a
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
REC'D LD-URL
FEB 27 1995
Apr .
Un | wl
TT
0104312 4
Ven
u ay ie i
ἢ ἫΝ ἣν ᾿
ΔΝ
ΗΝ ἊΣ
etek
STOR IAS Ey
hi ἰδ es
ΑΙ τὰ
SNe
is) ay iy
Alt
le
4
Pint
ai za
ii) Ἢ a
. ΤῊΝ ioe ἢ: ἐδ ᾿
ΤῊΝ Sia Mae i a ἢ
ΤΩΝ ἈΝ oh ety a Lia Ns
sab Meee ἡ et
ACHR ut oe
ἰοῦ att mite Sct Baa Phas,
Ht Phe min rake
4 deni
sau pat ἐδ, ἣν
ἜΝ ᾿ can ay Τὸν ΠΡ
2,
Ath yt} i,
aie Five ἢ hy
δ 8
1!
it alt
i
isle
balls pace
ate ‘i
Has
q
Mis,
ΓΝ :
GoM
"
ieee ae An
ὟΝ
eats Oh)
Ray
‘i i ΠΟ Nips
4 Soy! » digs Π
i ᾿ Vs ΤῊΝ ἢ Hat
He ᾿ ἘΠῚ
ἜΠΗ seat Dee aay bis ΩΝ
a wie Bie ὉΠ} 0 is LN i}
f sta 49 dia Wit ie nis fi
ἡ 1: ΠΝ 34) ae UE Psst Mien
a Ἢ hie als
=
Soe
A hoi
ay ΐ
seh ae ΤῊ
ArT At
ile fr
Pant
RAS
a a oe
‘ ΠῚ ἬΝ nV si ait) rf f π fae
a ἦν i ΠΗ ᾿ ἡ LEA AS) si
ΤΠ EY
ie
᾿ a edt ἢ
#5 $ Ae ἢ
i i Ἢ ΠΩΣ BA ¢ Heras,
bs} ies τ ... τῇ Ἢ ΠΗ oa Were ei? At sa "Ἢ
» ς if ;
ως i pe Ane
Pani {
ἘΡΩ͂ΣΙ
ΡΠ ΤΙ ΤΕ
eid
ee Fee ire
Beer: nf
ease aie: